Phillips v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 53

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 49 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/10/2015. (gpre, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
George Phillips,
Plaintiff,
vs.
South Carolina Department of
Corrections; Warden Robert Stevenson,
III; and Chaplain J. Michael Brown,
Defendants.
_________________________________

) Civil Action No. 8:14-2269-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff George Phillips (“the plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action
pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial handling and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 31), the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32), and the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 33.) On July 1, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Austin issued a Report recommending that the defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 33) be granted, and the plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction
(ECF No. 31) and summary judgment (ECF No. 32) be denied. (ECF No. 49.). The
Magistrate Judge advised the plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed
to do so. (ECF No. 49-1.) The plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired
on July 20, 2015.
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, 96 S.Ct. 549,
46 L.Ed.2d 483 (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).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 10, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.