Harrison v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 94

ORDER accepting 87 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that the Initial Moving Defendants: Levern Cohen, Bryne Thomas, Dr Elkins, John Tomarching, Ella L Simmons, John Solomon, S Watson, Pamelia C Derrick, and Chris A Lloyd's 52 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and Defendant Amonitti's 83 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 12/1/14. (kmca)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
De’Angelo Harrison, #330576,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections; )
Medical Staff at Allendale C.I.;
)
Bryne Thomas a/k/a Thomas Byrne;
)
Pamelia C. Derrick; John Solomon, PHD; )
Director of Medical John Tomarching;
)
Levern Cohen; Lieutenant S. Watson;
)
Chris R. Lloyd; George J. Amonitti;
)
Karina M. Callaway; Ella L. Simmons;
)
and Dr. Elkins,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No 8:14-cv-01196-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. This matter is
before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), [ECF
No. 87], filed on October 6, 2014, recommending that the Initial Moving Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss [ECF No. 52] be denied and Defendant George J. Amonitti’s (“Amonitti’s”) Motion to
Dismiss [ECF No. 83] be denied. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards
on these matters which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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

1

to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the magistrate judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [ECF No. 87-1). However,
Plaintiff filed a two-page Motion for Opposition [ECF No. 90] describing why Defendant Amonitti’s
Motion to Dismiss should be denied. However, the magistrate judge recommended that this court
deny that motion.
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record
in this case, the court finds the magistrate judge’s Report provides an accurate summary of the facts
and law. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 87]. For the reasons
articulated by the Report, the magistrate judge’s final decision is AFFIRMED. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Initial Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 52] is DENIED and
Defendant Amonitti’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 83] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 1, 2014

2