Frasier v. Carolina Center for Occupational Health et al

Filing 44

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. This case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/14/2017.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mark Lee Frasier,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolina Center for Occupational Health,
Nurse Morris, Nurse Phillips, and Nurse
Rojas,
Defendants.
_________________________________

) Civil Action No. 9:17-221-BHH
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred
to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations.
On August 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s claims and recommending that the Court
grant Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment and dismiss this case. (ECF No.
42.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right
to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. (Id.
at 12.) To date, no objections have been filed, and the time for doing so expired on
September 11, 2017.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to

which specific objections are 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). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper
and to evince no clear error, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
Report (ECF No. 42) herein by specific reference. Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED and this case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 14, 2017
Charleston, 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.

2