Witherspoon v. Marshall et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants NFN Marshall, Lt. Chestnut, Tim Riley, Gary Lane, and A/Warden NFN Goodsons are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs claims against Nurse Jones are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 4(m). Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 10/19/2017.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
JARODE JERMAINE WITHERSPOON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NFN MARHSALL, LT. CHESTNUT, TIM
RILEY, GARY LANE, A/WARDEN NFN
GOODSONS, and NURSE NFN JONES,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 9:16-03867-MGL-BM

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DISMISSING THE CLAIMS AGAINST NURSE NFN JONES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. This matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting the motion for summary judgment of Defendants NFN Marhsall,
Lt. Chestnut, Tim Riley, Gary Lane, and A/Warden NFN Goodsons (collectively Defendants) be
granted, and the claims against Defendant Nurse NFN Jones (Nurse Jones) be dismissed without
prejudice under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 4(m). The Report was made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court need not
conduct a de novo review, however, “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that
do not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge’s] proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on September 21, 2017. ECF No. 36. On October
2, 2017, the Clerk of Court filed a letter from Plaintiff with a partially completed Refusal of
Medical Advice Form (Plaintiff’s Letter) attached. ECF No. 38.
“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however,
required to “conjure up questions never squarely presented to them” or seek out arguments for a
party. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Even when construed liberally and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s
Letter fails to set forth any specific objections to the Report. Instead, Plaintiff’s Letter consists
of a conclusory allegation his constitutional rights have been violated, a citation regarding a
party’s ability to bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a paragraph regarding Plaintiff’s
alleged inability to access the “law computer” and other statements seemingly unrelated to the
Report. The Refusal of Medical Advice Form attached to Plaintiff’s Letter has been filled out by
Plaintiff but is not signed by a representative of the South Carolina Department of Corrections,
and Plaintiff provides no explanation regarding the purpose for which he supplies the form. Any
meaningful counter to the well-reasoned conclusions in the Report is absent. Because Plaintiff’s

2

Letter fails to allege any specific objection to the Report, the Court need not—and will
not—further address the content of Plaintiff’s Letter.
After a thorough review of the Report, Plaintiff’s Letter, and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants NFN Marshall, Lt. Chestnut, Tim Riley,
Gary Lane, and A/Warden NFN Goodsons are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s
claims against Nurse Jones are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Federal Civil
Procedure Rule 4(m).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 19th day of October 2017 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from
the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3