Beaton v. Moganmerry et al

Filing 57

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 40 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/6/2016.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Vincent Jerode Beaton, #196947,

C/A No. 9:15-0018-CMC

Plaintiff
v.
Ms. Montgomery, Nurse; Ms. Stokes,
Medical Director of Lee Institution; Ms.
Fulton, Head Nurse; and Warden Davis,

Opinion and Order

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed in this court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on January 5, 2015. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, for summary
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on October 12, 2015. ECF No. 40. A
Roseboro order was entered by the court on October 14, 2015, advising Plaintiff of the
importance of a dispositive motion and the need for Plaintiff to file an adequate response. ECF
No. 41. Plaintiff filed a response on November 30, 2015. ECF No. 47. Defendants filed their
reply on December 11, 2015. ECF No. 52.
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.
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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, 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
On March 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Defendants’ summary judgment motion be granted in its entirety, and that
the case be dismissed. ECF No. 55. 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. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has
expired.
After reviewing the motion, Plaintiff’s response, the record, the applicable law, 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 by reference
into this Order.
Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
2

Columbia, South Carolina
April 6, 2016

3