Bryant v. J Reuben Long Detention Center
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 69 . The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and the action is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 7/26/2017. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Benjamin Davis Bryant,
J. Reuben Long Detention Center, Phillipe E.
Thompson, Wayne M. Owens, Joey Johnson,
C/A No.: 6:16-cv-02905-TLW
Plaintiff Benjamin Davis Bryant, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
on August 22, 2016, alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ECF No. 1. Thereafter, Defendant J. Reuben Long Detention Center was dismissed, see ECF No.
66, and the remaining Defendants, Defendants Phillipe E. Thompson, Wayne M. Owens, Joey
Johnson, and Christine Snyder, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff
responded opposing the summary judgment motion, ECF No. 60, and Defendants replied, ECF
No. 62. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed on July 6, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, ECF
No. 69, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Id. The deadline to file objections was July 20, 2017.
However, Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the
Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant filings,
and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the Court accepts the detailed factual and legal
analysis by the Magistrate Judge and notes that Petitioner has not filed objections. Accordingly,
the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report, ECF No. 69. For the reasons stated in the Report,
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED, and this action is hereby
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
July 25, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?