Wright v. Harley et al

Filing 42

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is Dismissed. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/22/2012.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Ernest Wright,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Officer Harley, Nurse Weber and Willie
Bamberg, Orangeburg County Jail
Director,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 9:11-2839-RBH

ORDER

This action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections, alleges violations of
his constitutional rights by the named Defendants when he was a pre-trial detainee at the
Orangeburg County Jail. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this 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, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence
of 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). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005)
stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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.'” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and that
this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 22, 2012

2