Martin v. Byars et al

Filing 131

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 35 Motion for Protective Order, filed by Henry W Martin, Jr, 117 Report and Recommendation Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/11/2013. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Henry W. Martin, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
William R. Byars, Jr., Director; Dr. Moore,
)
Director of Medical Service; Dr. T. Byrne, ACI;
)
Dr. G. Amonitti, LCI;
Nurse NFN Derrick, )
ACI Health Care Authority; Wayne C. McCabe,
)
Warden LCI; Cpl. T Simpson, Allendale
)
Correctional Institution; Cpl. Melvin Drayton,
)
Allendale Correction Institution; Elizabeth
)
Holcomb, Nurse Praction, Lieber Correction
)
Institution; Lisa Hopolomber, Nurse Practice,
)
Lieber Correction Institution; Star Connelly,
)
Nurse Practice, Lieber Correction Institution;
)
Joseph McFadden, Associate Warden, Lieber
)
Correction Institution; Sylna Jones, Mail Room
)
Supervisory, Lieber Correction Institution;
)
Luclnecia Bryant, Mail Room Assistant, Lieber
)
Correction Institution; Rose Montee, Business
)
Office, Lieber Correction Institution,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )

C/A NO. 6:12-1089-CMC-KFM

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On March 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for protective order be denied.
The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no
1

objections and the time for doing so has expired.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by
reference in this Order. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied. This matter is returned
to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
April 11, 2013

2