Munn v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 29 Report and Recommendation. 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' Motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff's gross negligence/recklessness cause of action and Plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional dismiss claim. Defendants' Motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Plaintiff's § 1983 claim. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 6/13/2018. (gpre, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Julius Allen Munn,
) C/A No. 8:17-cv-2191-DCC
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
South Carolina Department of Corrections,
)
Christopher Lagasse, Elaine Delaney,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violations of civil
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various other claims. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed
a Partial Motion to Dismiss on November 9, 2017. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff, represented by
counsel, filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion, and Defendants filed a Reply. ECF
Nos. 20, 22. This Motion is now ripe for resolution.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.),
this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).

On May 3, 2018, the

Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Partial Motion to Dismiss be
granted in part and denied in part. ECF No. 29. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties
of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report. Plaintiff filed a
Response in Support of the Report, and Defendants did not file a response.
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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will
review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s
recommendation that the Partial Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order with respect to its
discussion of the Partial Motion to Dismiss. Defendant’s Motion is granted with respect to
Plaintiff’s gross negligence/recklessness cause of action and Plaintiff’s intentional infliction
of emotional dismiss claim. Defendant’s Motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s claim
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 13, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina