Vanzant v. Carolina Center for Occupational Health et al

Filing 131

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 127 Report and Recommendation. Defendants 109 motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is GRANTED and case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 2/23/2016. (gpre, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Ronnie J. Vanzant, a/k/a
Ronnie Joe Vanzant,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Dr. Theodolph H. Jacobs, P.A. Ms.
)
Huffman, and Ms. Michelle Page,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:14-cv-03725-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Ronnie J. Vanzant, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above named Defendants alleging they violated his constitutional rights
by acting in deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. See ECF No. 109. The matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge
Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina.1 See R & R, ECF No. 127. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court
grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants. R & R at 16.
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 this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo

1

The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). But see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985) (“Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints are not, however, without limits.
Gordon directs district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally. It does not require those courts to conjure up
questions never squarely presented to them.”).

determination of those portions of the R & R 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court
is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the
absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly,
the Court adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 127] of the Magistrate Judge. It
is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment [ECF No. 109] is GRANTED and that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The
Court directs the Clerk to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
February 23, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2