Crouchman v. Pickens County LEC Jail et al
Filing
57
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant and granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Pickens County LEC Jail, Capt. Keith Galloway, Lt. Drew Sisco, Cpl. Tammy Hamilton, Sgt. Kristie Leopard, Officer Riley Hope, Sgt. Anthony Massingill, Officer Matt Sewell, and Howard Anderson. These Defendants are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 5/15/2013.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jeffrey William Crouchman,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Pickens County LEC Jail, Capt. Keith
)
Galloway, Lt. Drew Sisco, Cpl. Tammy
)
Hamilton, Sgt. Kristie Leopard, Officer
)
Riley Hope, Sgt. Anthony Massingill,
)
Offficer Matt Sewell, Dr. Mary Hammond, )
and Howard Anderson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
C/A NO. 9:12-2231-CMC-BM
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On March 22, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued
a Report recommending that the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of all Defendants
except for Dr. Mary Hammond be granted. Defendant Hammond has not filed a dispositive motion
and the time for doing so has expired. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
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.
1
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 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews 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 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 record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the conclusion of the Report.
Therefore, the Report is adopted by reference in this Order. The motion for summary judgment filed
by Defendants Pickens County LEC Jail, Capt. Keith Galloway, Lt. Drew Sisco, Cpl. Tammy
Hamilton, Sgt. Kristie Leopard, Officer Riley Hope, Sgt. Anthony Massingill, Offficer Matt Sewell,
and Howard Anderson is granted and these Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
The remaining Defendant, Dr. Mary Hammond, has failed to file a dispositive motion.
Accordingly, it appears this matter should be set for trial. To facilitate certain pretrial matters and
to determine when this matter should be tried, a pretrial conference is set before the Honorable
Kevin F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge, for Tuesday, May 21, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., in
Greenville, South Carolina.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
May 15, 2013
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?