Chronister v. Byars et al

Filing 128

ORDER adopting 123 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' 85 Motion for summary judgment is granted. The Plaintiff's 73 Motion for summary judgment is denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/25/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Alan Dale Chronister,
Plaintiff,
v.
Director William Byars, South Carolina
Department of Corrections; Laverne Cohen,
Ridgeland Correctional Institution Warden;
Assoc. Warden C.A. Burton; Assoc. Warden
S. Singleton; Lt. W. Buoy,
Defendants.
____________________________________

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

C/A No.: 8:12-3348-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Alan Dale Chronister, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. At the time of the events giving rise to this action, plaintiff was
incarcerated at the Ridgeland Correctional Institution. He brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising a variety of claims that his constitutional rights were violated
relating to his conditions of confinement and lack of medical care.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should grant the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment.2 The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of

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 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. 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

law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was docketed on February 5, 2014. Plaintiff timely filed objections.
The plaintiff alleges various violations under the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution with regard to the conditions of his confinement and allegations of deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. The Magistrate Judge agrees with the defendants that they
are entitled to summary judgment.
While the plaintiff’s 37-page objection memorandum is specifically enumerated, it
provides no basis for this court to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended
disposition and is repetitive of the claims in plaintiff’s complaint. As such, the objections
are overruled.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation and incorporates the Report herein by reference.

Accordingly, the

defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 85) is granted. The plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 73) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 25, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2