Pelzer v. McCall et al

Filing 66

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court adopts the Report andRecommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Defendants motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 55) is granted and the case dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 2/22/2012. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas Lee Pelzer,

)
) C/A No. 8:10-2484-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael McCall; Miriam Cocciolone;
)
Florence Mauney; John Ozmint; Stephen
)
Claytor; D. Bush; Rhonda Abston; Captain )
Tinch; Charles Williams; Lt. Hunter;
)
Vernon Miller; Lt. Conwell; Lt. Bennett;
)
L. Harouff; Lt. Scottland; Lt. Byrd,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
At the time of the underlying complaint, Plaintiff Thomas Lee Pelzer was an inmate in
custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections who was housed at the Perry Correctional
Institution in Pelzer, South Carolina. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on September
23, 2010, amended December 28, 2010, alleging deprivation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin
for a Report and Recommendation.
This matter is before the court on motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants on May
20, 2011. By order filed May 20, 2011, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if
he failed to respond adequately. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion on
June 24, 2011. On January 25, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
in which she determined that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the

Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff
filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.

The court adopts the Report and

Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 55) is granted and the case dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Chief United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
February 22, 2012.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2