Winkfield v. Staphen et al

Filing 99

ORDER ruling on Report and Recommendation 96 . The court adopts the magistrate judges Report (ECF No. 96), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) is GRANTED. Because the court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, Plaintiffs Motion to compel (ECF No. 60) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/20/2019. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Montavious Winkfield,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael Staphen,
Lisa Young,
Anite Stevens, and
Laura H. Kawaguchi,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-950-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Defendants
violated his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1-1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel on December 13, 2018. (ECF No. 60). On January 22, 2019,
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 65). The court issued an order
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising the Plaintiff of the
summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately.
(ECF No. 67).
When Plaintiff missed the deadline for his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment,
the court issued an order allowing Plaintiff extra time to respond. (ECF No. 73). In that order, the
court warned Plaintiff that failure to respond would result in the case being subject to dismissal for
failure to prosecute. Id. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file his
response, (ECF No. 77), which the court granted (ECF No. 78). Plaintiff then filed a second Motion
for Extension of Time (ECF No. 80), which the court granted (ECF No. 81). When Plaintiff missed
1

this deadline to respond, the court issued another order extending Plaintiff’s time to respond and
warning plaintiff that failure to respond would result in the case being subject to dismissal for
failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 86). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a third Motion for Extension of Time
(ECF No. 88), which the court granted (ECF No. 89). However, the Plaintiff never responded to
the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
recommending that the court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65).
(ECF No. 96). Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at 17. However,
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). In
the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 96), which is incorporated
herein by reference. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) is
GRANTED. Because the court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, Plaintiff’s
Motion to compel (ECF No. 60) is DENIED as moot. 1

1

Additionally, because the court finds that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, the court will not address
whether Plaintiff’s case is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
August 20, 2019
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3