Blessing et al v. Scaturo et al

Filing 68

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 41 Report and Recommendation is approved. 41 motion to certify class and motions 42 43 44 56 for reconsideration are DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/20/2016. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No.: 6:16-1832-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
)
)
Holly Scaturo, Director,
ORDER
)
Ms. Kimberly Poholchuk, B.M.C. Program
)
Director,
)
Ms. Cynthia Helff, B.M.C.
)
Dr. Gothard, Psychologist,
)
Dr. Brown, Psychologist,
)
Dr. Trass, Psychologist,
)
Dr. Swan, Psychologist,
)
Ms. Marie Gehle, Evaluator,
)
Dr. Donna Schwartz-Watts, Psychologist,
)
Capt. Frank Abney, P.S.O Supervisor,
)
Mr. Galen Sanders, Chief Nursing
)
Administrator,
)
Mr. Harold Alexander, R.N.,
)
Ms. Charlene Hickman, R.N.,
)
Dr. John McGill, Director of Department of
)
Mental Health,
)
Mr. Allen Wilson, Attorney General,
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________ )
Jimmy E. Blessing

Plaintiff Jimmy E. Blessing (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights, along with 14
other people who were terminated from this action. (ECF No. 1.) The 15 original plaintiffs
filed a motion to certify class (ECF No. 41), and four of them also filed motions for
reconsideration of the Order of Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald (ECF No. 29) which
terminated them from the case (ECF Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Kevin F. McDonald, for pretrial handling.

On August 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court deny the motion to certify class and the motions for
reconsideration. (ECF No. 50.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. On
August 11, 2016, Plaintiff and the 14 terminated Plaintiffs were advised of their right to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 50 at 5). However, neither
Plaintiff nor the 14 terminated Plaintiffs have filed any objections, and the time to do so
expired on August 29, 2016. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is approved and incorporated herein by
reference. The motion to certify class (ECF No. 41) and the motions for reconsideration
(ECF Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45) are DENIED.
-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 20, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina

-3-