James v. Cartledge et al

Filing 53

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. This action is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 4/11/2016.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Michael D. James, #294004

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Leroy Cartledge, Warden; Scott Lewis,
)
Assistant Warden of Security; NFN
)
Mursier, Major of Secuirty; and Officer
)
Goble,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 9:15-cv-00625-TLW

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael D. James, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is now before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on March 2, 2016 by United States Magistrate
Judge Bristow Marchant, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court
grant summary judgment and dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff filed Objections to
the Report on March 16, 2016, (ECF No. 48), and Defendants filed their Reply to the Objections
on March 18, 2016, (ECF No. 49). This matter is now ripe for decision.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting
this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report,
the Plaintiff’s objections, relevant filings, and applicable law and concludes that the Magistrate
Judge accurately summarized the applicable law. Although the Court notes that Plaintiff was
gravely injured, his allegations do not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. It is
therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 46) is
ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
April 11, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina