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, )

Download PDF
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

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?