Tate v. Anderson et al

Filing 55

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendants' motion for summary judgment 32 is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 3/11/2025. (agaz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Ricky Dean Tate,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Noel Anderson, Willie Davis, Ms. Stubbs ,)
Warden Johnny Palmer, Warden A/W
)
Roberson,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 9:23-cv-05109-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of his civil
rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.),
this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).

On July 17, 2024,

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 32. On January 27, 2025,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion be granted. ECF
No. 52. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for
filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Plaintiff
has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the
Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.” (citation omitted)).
As noted above, Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report. Upon review for clear
error, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Defendants’
motion for summary judgment [32] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge

March 11, 2025
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2