Agumagu v. Major et al

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING 50 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 33 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Jay Shire, John Adams, Darrell Mcghaney, Simon Major. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/25/2010. (mbro, )

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

M a u ric e Antoine Agumagu, P l a in tif f , vs. S im o n Major; Darrell A d a m s ; and Jay Shire, McGhaney; John

D e f e n d a n ts . ____________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C/A No. 6:09-2677-JFA-KFM

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, Maurice Antoine Agumagu, brings this action pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983 alleging that the defendants were negligent and deliberately indifferent to his h ea lth and safety while he was a pretrial detainee at Sumter-Lee Regional Detention Center. T h e defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and an order was issued p u rs u a n t to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of the s u m m a ry dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff responded to the motion. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n wherein he suggests that the defendants' motion for summary judgment

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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

1

sh o u ld be granted because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim on the merits. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court in c o rp o ra te s such without a recitation. The 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 September 22, 2010. However, the p la in tif f did not file any objections to the Report within the time limits prescribed. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court i s not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. D a v is, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). 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 proper and inco rpo rate d herein by reference. ju d g m e n t is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary

O c to b e r 25, 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