Al-Mujahidin v. Franklin et al

Filing 64

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 49 Motion for Summary Judgment. This actionis DISMISSED with prejudice.. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/23/2016.(cwhi, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Muhammad Al-Mujahidin, # 103968,
Plaintiff,
vs.
J. F. Franklin, J. Young, Leroy Cartledge,
and Brian Sterling,
Defendants.
_________________________________

) Civil Action No. 9:15-1978-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Muhammad A.-Mujahidin (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this
action pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (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 handling
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 49). On May 31, 2016, Magistrate Judge Marchant issued a Report
recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) be
granted, and this case be dismissed. (ECF No. 61.)1 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. (ECF No. 61 at
10.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on June 17, 2016.

1

A previous Report was filed in this case on February 11, 2016 (ECF No. 52) which
recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. However, Plaintiff filed a late
motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgement
(ECF No. 54), which was granted. The Report (ECF No. 52) was not adopted, and the case was
referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270, 96 S.Ct.
549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the Report and Recommendation or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference.
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED, and this action
is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 23, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina
*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.