Braswell v. Gillispie et al
Filing
84
OPINION and ORDER RULING ON 80 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and GRANTING 49 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Southern Health Partners, Veronica Deas, Pam Byrd, Corey, GRANTING 41 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Tim Eubanks, Lisa Gainey, Administrator Gillispie. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 12/3/18. (sfla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Imani Aliyah Braswell
also known as
Cathy Kirkland Braswell
also known as
Cathy Delores Kirkland,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Administrator Gillispie, Tim Eubanks,
Lisa Gainey, Pam Byrd,
Southern Health Partners, Veronica Deas,
and Nurse Corey,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 8:17-3116-HMH-JDA
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Imani Aliyah Braswell (“Braswell”),
proceeding pro se, alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Tim Eubanks, Lisa
Gainey, and Administrator Gillispie filed a motion for summary judgment. Additionally,
Defendants Pam Byrd, Nurse Corey, Veronica Deas, and Southern Health Partners filed a
separate motion for summary judgment. In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
1
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Austin recommends granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (R&R 13, ECF No.
80.)
Braswell filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report
and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of
a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is
accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir.
1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, 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).
Upon review, the court finds that Braswell’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate her
claims. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Braswell’s objections are without merit.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein by reference.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, docket numbers 41 and
49, are granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 3, 2018
2
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified that she has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
3
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?