Penland v. Cavannough et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 35 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting Defendants' 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's 37 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is RENDERED AS MOOT. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 6/16/2017. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
EDDIE L. PENLAND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JERRY B. ADGER, ERIN JOHNSON, and
ALAN WILSON,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:17-00084-MGL
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND RENDERING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The matter is before the Court for (1)
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and (2) its consideration of
Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on May 25, 2017, but Plaintiff failed to file any
objections. “[I]n 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to
object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of
this Court Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, which necessarily means
Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal is RENDERED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 16th day of June, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2