Singletary v. Stirling et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Defendants Stirling, Williams, and Parker are summarily DISMISSED from this action without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D Austin on 11/22/2024. (dgar)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Nathaniel A. Singletary,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Brian P. Stirling, SCDC Director;
Jana Hollis, Deputy Warden; Stephen )
Ayers, Sgt.; Hilary Moore, QMHP; Rod )
Rowe, MHO; Sgt. Roosevelt Anderson; )
)
Lieutenant Charles Frazier; Ofc. K.
Williams, a/k/a K. Will; Captain Parker, )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 9:24-cv-03132-JDA-MHC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the
Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 13.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H.
Cherry for pre-trial proceedings.
Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was entered on the docket on May 20, 2024, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1.] On September 26, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that Defendants Brian P. Stirling, Ofc. K. Williams, and Captain
Parker be summarily dismissed from the action because the Complaint fails to provide
any specific facts to support a claim that these Defendants violated Plaintiff’s federal
constitutional or statutory rights. [Doc. 13.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 6.] Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time
to do so has lapsed.

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, 270–71
(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” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.
Accordingly, Defendants Stirling, Williams, and Parker are summarily DISMISSED from
this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States District Judge

November 22, 2024
Greenville, South Carolina

2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules
3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3