Brinkley v. Three Unknown Correctional Officers of the South Carolina Department of Corrections at Evans Correctional Institutition

Filing 59

ORDER FINDING 56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROPER; The defendants 45 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice.Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 8/4/2010. (mbro, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA

A lo n z o R. Brinkley, II,

) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) v. ) ) S e rg e a n t Samuel Wilson, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) _________________________________ )

C / A No. 6:07-3626-JFA-KFM

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Alonzo Brinkley, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. H e is an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). In his c o m p la in t, plaintiff asserts that defendant Wilson (and three previous defendants who have s in c e been dismissed for lack of service) violated his constitutional rights by verbally and p h ys ic a lly abusing him during a lockdown process. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a thorough Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n and opines that the defendant's motion for summary judgment2 should be g ran ted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.
2

1

1

a n d the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing. T h e plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on June 15, 2010, however, he has not d o n e so within the time limits prescribed. As the Magistrate Judge correctly opines, plaintiff's claims fail on the merits. The p la in tif f has not come forward with any evidence to prove his allegations, nor has he refuted th e defendant's denial of involvement in the incident. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to e x h a u st his administrative remedies, as is required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and in c o rp o ra te s the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for s u m m a ry judgment is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

A u g u st 4, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

2