Cash v. Thomas et al

Filing 187

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 182 . The defendants motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to Plaintiffs constitutional claims, and this case dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 7/19/2013. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
) Civil Action No. 6:12-1278-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
)
Dr. Thomas and Lt. Clawson,
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
William Auston Cash,

Plaintiff William Auston Cash (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging his constitutional rights were violated due to the conditions of his
confinement and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee
at Lexington County Detention Center. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin
F. McDonald for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation. Defendant Lt. Clawson filed
a motion for summary judgment on November 2, 2012. (ECF No. 59). Defendant Dr. Thomas filed
a motion for summary judgment on November 21, 2012. (ECF No. 72). Since Plaintiff is pro se
in this matter, the court entered orders for both motions for summary judgment pursuant to Roseboro
v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) advising Plaintiff of the importance of the dispositive
motions and of the need for him to file adequate responses. (ECF Nos. 60 & 75.) Plaintiff filed
responses in opposition on November 16, 2012 (ECF No. 70) and December 6, 2012 (ECF No. 78).
On June 18, 2013, Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that both Defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted, finding that
Plaintiff’s claims fail on the merits based on the evidence in the record. (ECF No. 182.) The

Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 182 at
16.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on July 5, 2013.
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 and Recommendation 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 and Recommendation 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.”) (internal citation omitted).
After reviewing the motions and responses, the record, and the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 182) by reference into this order. The court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any claims for relief asserted pursuant to state
law and any such claims are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s
constitutional claims, and this case dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
-2-

United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
July 19, 2013

-3-