Goodman v. Blake

Filing 65

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 63 Report and Recommendation. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/11/2016. (gpre, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sam Goodman,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Dr. Sally Blake c/o South Carolina
Department of Corrections, Housed in
Lee Correctional Institution,
Defendant.
_________________________________

) Civil Action No. 8:14-4276-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Sam Goodman (“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 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 39), and Plaintiff’s motion for SCDC to pay medical cost upon release. (ECF
No. 46.) On December 8, 2015, Magistrate Judge Austin issued a Report
recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 39) be
granted, and Plaintiff’s motion for SCDC to pay medical cost upon release (ECF No. 46)
be denied. (ECF No. 63.) The Magistrate Judge advised 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. 63-1.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the
time for doing so expired on December 29, 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
January 11, 2016
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.