United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Dr. Anthony Bernard Jones, Sr., Plaintiff,
Warden Michael McCall, Head Nurse McDonald, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Forrest Dr. Anthony Bernard Jones, Sr., ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation ("Report").
On February 27, 2014, Defendants Warden Michael McCall and Head Nurse McDonald ("Defendants") filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 61.) Since Plaintiff is pro se in this matter, the Court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on February 28, 2014, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65), and filed a response in opposition on March 31, 2014. (ECF No. 70.) On July 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gossett issued a Report recommending that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted because, inter alia, Defendants, in their official capacities, are immune from suit, and Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. (ECF No. 79.). The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 79 at 10.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on August 4, 2014.
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 and Recommendation 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 reviews the Report and Recommendation 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).
After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 79) by reference into this order. It is therefore ORDERED that ...