Mack v. South Carolina Dept of Corrections et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 44 Report and Recommendations, 33 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Michael McCall, T Robertson, R Root, South Carolina Dept of Corrections, Ltd Haronff. It is therefore ORDERED that the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED. The plaintiff's case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/2/2012. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Davorius M. Mack,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al., )
CA No. 6:11-1230
Plaintiff Davorius M. Mack (Mack), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action
against the defendants under 42 U.S. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) This matter is before the court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States magistrate judge made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South
Carolina. (Dkt. No. 44.) 1 The Report recommends granting the defendants' motions for summary
judgment. (Dkt. No. 33.) The court adopts the Report and grants the motions for summary
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the
court incorporates the magistrate judge's Report. Briefly, Mack is incarcerated at Perry
Correctional Institution. He alleges that on October 15, 2010, he complained about the inability to
urinate and requested medical attention. At the time, the medical department was unable to see
him, so he became agitated and began kicking his door. After mealtime, he refused to return his
The magistrate judge's recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility
for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
tray to the corrections officers. After multiple requests to return his tray or present himself to be
restrained, the corrections officers used chemical munitions to subdue Mack. Following the
incident, medical staff checked on Mack and inserted a catheter to resolve his urination issues.
Mack subsequently filed this action, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition on (1) cruel and unusual punishment for the use of the chemical munitions and (2)
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on October 3, 2011. (Dkt. No. 33.)
The magistrate judge filed his Report on January 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 44.) In the Report, the
magistrate judge recommended finding that the defendants did not violate the Eighth Amendment
in either regard. Mack timely filed a document labeled "amended objections." (Dkt. No. 46.)
However, the document is not responsive in any way to the Report—Mack failed to file specific
objections. As such, the court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation. See Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (stating that the court need not conduct a de novo review
when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations”); see also Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (stating that in the absence of specific objection, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation). In the absence
of a timely filed, specific objection, the magistrate judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear
error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Mack
provides no basis for the court to deviate from the magistrate judge's recommendation.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court adopts the
Report and incorporates it herein. (Dkt. No. 44.) It is therefore ORDERED that the defendants'
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED. The plaintiff's case is DISMISSED
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
August 2, 2012
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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?