Temple v. Oconee County et al

Filing 113

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 102 Report and Recommendation, 85 Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/8/2014. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Dennis Temple,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Oconee County; Sheriff James Singleton;
Major Steve Pruitt; Lieutenant Unknown
Fostervold; Sergeant Dallas Shirley; Officer
Robert Whitfield; Officer David Wald; Officer
Wayne Hill; Officer Tim Williamson;
Officer Ray Armstrong; Officer Joy Hunter;
Officer Scott Arnold; Sergeant Kevin Cain;
Lieutenant Greg Reed; Officer Travis
Overton; Officer Beverly Siegler; Officer
Cindy Beckett; Sergeant Roger Foster;
Sergeant Brenda Wallis; Sergeant Renita
Rohletter; Officer Lori McAllister; Officer
Rudy Steele; Officer Zachary Lombardi;
Officer Lisa Herbert; Officer Lindsey
McKinney; Officer Jason Addis; Officer Gene
Evans; Officer Rick Oakley; Officer Jonathon
Jerde; Officer John Charles; Officer Maria
Melendez; Officer Denise Chasteen; Officer
Tyrone Merck; and Officer Patrina
Blassingame,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 6:13-144-JFA-KFM

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Dennis Temple, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. The plaintiff is a state prisoner
serving a 100-year sentence upon his conviction for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a
college student, and grand larceny. At issue in this litigation are certain actions allegedly
1

taken with regard to the plaintiff while he was a pretrial detainee at the Oconee County
Detention Center (OCDC) awaiting trial. Plaintiff’s claims primarily arise out of his
placement in administrative segregation while he was being held as a pretrial detainee. At
the conclusion of his 48-page complaint, the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages of
$5,000,000 and punitive damages of $10,000,000 at the hands of numerous law enforcement
officers and other officials.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment2 should be
granted.

The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this

matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and he has done
so in a 75-page objection memorandum. In each and every objection, the plaintiff contends
that the Magistrate Judge has “mischaracteriz[ed]...his meritorious...claim.” Plaintiff then
goes on to reassert and reargue the basic allegations in the underlying complaint. Although
lengthy and prolix, the plaintiff’s objection memorandum does not address in any meaningful

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying
plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond
to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.
2

way the legal analysis provided by the conscientious Magistrate Judge who handled this case.
As such, the objections are overruled. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of
the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, this court adopts and incorporates the
Magistrate Judge’s Report herein by reference. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 85) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 8, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3