Singletary v. Edgefield Sheriff Department et al
Filing
157
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and granting 130 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 135 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 141 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 142 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 5/23/2013.(cwhi, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
William E. Singletary, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Adell Dobey, Ronald Carter, Officer
Michael Butts, Corp. Mark Pica, Lieutenant
Mike Cockrell, Captain Chris Wash,
Sergeant Michael Raffield, Lt. Jagger, Lt.
Hall, C-O Joshua Jones C-O Prince, Deputy
Florida, Sgt. Kyther Potts, Southern Health
Partners a/k/a Health Partner’s, Dr. Tami Y.
Massey, and Edgefield Hospital,
Defendants.
__________________________________
) Civil Action No. 9:11-2658-MGL
)
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff William E. Singletary, Jr., (“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 Bristow Marchant for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation. On February 25,
2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 142, 143.) Since Plaintiff is pro
se in this matter, the Court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975) on February 26, 2013, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the
need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 144.) Plaintiff filed his opposition on April
15, 2013. (ECF No. 149.)
On April 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Marchant issued a Report recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and this case be dismissed. (ECF No. 152.)
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. 152
at 26.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on May 9, 2013.
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 and Recommendation 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation 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 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.”) (citation omitted).
After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 152) by reference into this order. It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and this case
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
May 23, 2013
-2-
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?