Randolph v. Fuertes-Rosario et al

Filing 34

ORDER adopting 32 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Summary Judgment is entered on behalf of the defendants and this case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 10/31/12.(hhil, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No. 9:11-3327-MGL
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
L. Fuertez-Rosario, HSA-MLP; John J.
)
LaManna, Warden; and G. Link,
)
Physicians Assistant;
)
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________

Antonio Martinelle Randolph,
#19394-058,

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to the doctrine
announced in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971) alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the prison employees named in the
complaint. (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
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On April 16, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 17.) 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 April 23, 2012, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for
him to file an adequate response. ( ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff requested and received an extension of
time in which to file a response to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 26,
2012. (ECF No. 26.)
On August 27, 2012, Magistrate Judge Marchant issued a Report recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (ECF No. 32.) 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. Objections were due by
September 13, 2012. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired.
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. 32) by reference into this order. It is
therefore ORDERED that the 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
October 31, 2012

-2-