Slocumb v. Wood et al

Filing 22

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Defendants General Assembly and SIB Nurses are dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/11/2017.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

Conrad L. Slocumb, a/k/a Conrad
Lamont Slocumb,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Dr. Beverly Wood, M.D.; Dr. Marcia
)
Garcia, P.A.; Dr. NFN Parker, M.D.,
)
Contract Physician; Doctor NFN Prest, )
M.D., Contract Physician; Nurse NFN )
Mullins, R.N., H.C.A.; Nurse Roselyn
)
Boatwright, R.N.; Nurse Roseanne
)
Mack, L.P.N.; Ladford Fate, H.S.C.;
)
Annie Rumler, SCDC Staff Attorney;
)
Dr. NFN McRee, M.D.; Warden Tim
)
Riley, K.C.I.; Wayne McCade, Regional )
Director; Michael McCall, Deputy
)
Director; SCDC Director NFN Stirling; )
Sgt. NFN Watson, KCI; Sgt. NFN
)
Gathers, KCI; A.W. NGN Thompson,
)
KCI; Officer Spigner, KCI Librarian;
)
Major Vaghn Jackson, KCI; NFN
)
Marshal, KCI Food Service Director;
)
John Doe, Kirkland Maintenance )
Supervisor; General Assembly; Dr. T. )
White, KCI Dentist; SIB Nurses; Nurse )
NFN Higgins, Agency Nurse Director, )
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 9:17-1298-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule

73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
preliminary review. On September 13, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss

Defendants General Assembly and SIB Nurses without prejudice and without issuance and
service of process. As the Magistrate Judge noted, Defendants General Assembly and SIB
Nurses appear to be groups of people and such groups are not amenable to suit under §
1983. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right
to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of receiving a copy. To date,
no objections have been filed.
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. Finding none, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 17) and
dismisses Defendants General Assembly and SIB Nurses without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process.
2

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 11, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

3