Smith v. Moore et al

Filing 45

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court herebyACCEPTS the Report, (Doc. # 40). The Defendants Motion for Summary Judge isGRANTED, (Doc. # 24). Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 35) and Plaintiffs Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. # 42) are terminated as MOOT. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 7/24/2012. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Terry J. Smith,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Mr. Moore, SCDC MD, and Ms. Enloe,
)
SCDC NP,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 6:11-2248-TLW-KFM

ORDER
On August 24, 2011, the Plaintiff, Terry J. Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1).
The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, to whom this case
had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that any pending non-dispositive motions be
denied as moot. (Doc. # 40). Objections were due by July 9, 2012. Although Plaintiff did not
file his objections until July 18, 2012, the Court has reviewed and considered them. (Doc. # 43).
In conducting its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the
Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case,

the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate
judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court hereby
ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 40).

The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judge is

GRANTED. (Doc. # 24). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 35) and
Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections (Doc. # 42) are terminated as
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 24, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

__s/Terry L. Wooten______
United States District Judge