Hills v. Aubrey
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 72 Report and Recommendation, granting 51 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 2/14/2018. (gpre, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lt. Aubrey Rennick, Sgt. Derrick Mungo,
Lt. Karen Henderson, and Warden David
Case No. 8:16-cv-02731-TLW
LeArthur Hills (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action on July 28, 2016, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On June 19,
2017, Lt. Aubrey Rennick, Sgt. Derrick Mungo, Lt. Karen Henderson, and Warden David W.
Dunlap (“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51). The next day, the
Court issued an Order in accordance with Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
advising Plaintiff of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and of the possible consequences
if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (ECF No. 52). On July 28, 2017, United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin issued an Order that the action would be dismissed for
failure to prosecute if Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by
August 17, 2017. (ECF No. 56).
On August 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Austin issued a report and recommendation
recommending dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 58). Subsequently,
Plaintiff filed a “Response To The Order Of Summary Judgment Objection From Plaintiff,” (ECF
No. 60) and an “Objection To Report And Recommendation,” (ECF No. 68), which detailed
Plaintiff’s desire to continue prosecuting his case. In light of Plaintiff’s responses, the case was
remanded to Magistrate Judge Austin for a supplemental report and recommendation. (ECF No.
This matter is now before the Court for review of the supplemental report and
recommendation (the “Report”) filed by Magistrate Judge Austin, to whom this case was 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.
72). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that this Court grant Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 72). The deadline to file objections was December 19,
2017. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. Therefore, the motion is now ripe for review.
In reviewing the Report, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified finding or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusion of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant law, and the record in accordance
with the standard set forth in Wallace. See id. The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file
objections to the Report. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report (ECF No. 72) is
ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge and those stated herein,
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED and the Complaint, (ECF
No. 1), is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
February 14, 2018
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?