Williams v. Davis

Filing 60

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 37 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Anthony Davis, 56 Report and Recommendations. The defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and this actionis dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/14/2012. (kric, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Rackim Williams,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Officer LT Anthony Davis,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 8:11-281-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Rackim Williams, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
setting forth claims against the defendant for excessive force and cruel and unusual
punishment stemming from an altercation while the plaintiff was housed at the Special
Management Unit (SMU) at Lee Correctional Institution.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the defendant’s motion for judgment2 should be granted.
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge suggests that the defendant is entitled to qualified
immunity. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff
of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.

1

matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report which was
entered on the docket on February 21, 2012. As of the date of this order, neither party has
filed objections to the Report and the time within which to do so has expired. In the absence
of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report
and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and
accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and this action
is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 14, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2