Plough v. Scaturo et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, accepts 47 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The rem aining outstanding motions, Defendant Wilson's 21 Motion to Dismiss, 35 Defendant Swan's Motion to Dismiss, and the Defendants' 51 Motion for Extension of Time to File, are hereby deemed MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/28/2016. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Holly Scaturo, Director; Mrs. Kimberly, Poholchuk,)
B.M.C. Program Director; Ms. Cynthia Helff,
B.M.C.; Dr. Kelly Gothard; Dr. Gordon Brown,
Psychologist; Dr. Rozanna Trass, Psychologist; Dr. )
Amy Swan, Psychologist; Ms. Marie Gehle,
Evaluator; Dr. Donna Schwartz-Watts,
Psychologist; Capt. Frank Abney,P.S.O. Supervisor;)
Mr. Galen Sanders, Chief Nursing Administrator; )
Mr. Harold Alexander, R.N.; Ms. Charlene
Hickman, R.N.; Dr. John McGill, Director of
Department of Mental Health; Mr. Allen Wilson, )
Case No. 8:16-cv-02325-TLW
Plaintiff Stephen Plough, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 27, 2016. ECF No. 1. Defendant Attorney General Alan
Wilson filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 9, 2016. ECF No. 21. On that same day, Plaintiff
was advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed. ECF No. 23. Thereafter,
some, but not all, of the Defendants 1 filed an Answer denying the claims in the Complaint. ECF
No. 25. Notably, on September 28, 2016, Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 33.
Some, but not all, of the Defendants 2 filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion stating that they
consented to dismissal, ECF No. 38, and on December 22, 2016, they also filed a motion for an
Defendants Scaturo, Poholchuk, Helff, Gothard, Brown, Trass, Gehle, Schwartz, Abney, Sanders,
Alexander, and Magill filed an Answer. ECF No. 25.
Filers include Defendants Scaturo, Poholchuk, Helff, Gothard, Brown, Trass, Gehle, Schwartz, Abney,
Sanders, Alexander, and Magill. ECF Nos. 38, 51.
extension of time to file if the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss was not granted, ECF No. 51. On
October 6, 2016, Defendant Amy Swan filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 35.
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Athe Report@) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, to whom this case had
previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). ECF No. 47. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Id. Objections were
due on December 22, 2016, however, the parties failed to file objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge=s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C.
' 636. In the absence of objections to the Report, this Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and relevant filings. For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge=s Report
and Recommendation, ECF No. 47, is ACCEPTED, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 33,
is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(2). The remaining outstanding motions, Defendant Wilson’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.
21, Defendant Swan’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 35, and the Defendants’ Motion for Extension
of Time to File, ECF No. 51, are hereby deemed MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__s/Terry L. Wooten______
Chief United States District Judge
December 28, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?