Austin v. Steen et al

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING 29 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by N Dayne Haile, Jeanne McKaye, R Steen, Cecilia Reynolds, Jon Ozmint, D Cook, Janice Phillips, J Alewine, Warden Stone, Jerry Washington, M Beinor; ADOPTING 35 Report and Recommendations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall construe and treat Plaintiffs Letter 37 , as his Notice of Appeal. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/13/2011. (mbro, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Brent Austin, C.A. No.: 6:10-cv-02286-RBH Plaintiff, vs. Dr. R. Steen, Jon Ozmint, Dr. J. Alewine, Dr. M. Beinor, Nurse D. Cook, Warden Stone, Cecilia Reynolds, Jeanne McKaye, Jerry Washington, Janice Phillips, N. Dayne Haile, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall construe and treat Plaintiff’s Letter, [Docket Entry 37], as his Notice of Appeal. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina July 13, 2011 1 Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff did file a document three days after his deadline for filing objections expired, but this document did not contain any specific objections to the Report and Recommendation. See Letter [Docket Entry 37]. However, the court does note that this Letter indicated Plaintiff’s desire to appeal “the decisions that were made in [the] court.” Id. Accordingly, the court will instruct the Clerk to treat that Letter as Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?