Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ward v. United States

United States District Court, District of South Carolina

April 13, 2015

Larry Ward, Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Director Charles Samuels, in his official and individual capacities; Rear Admiral Newton E. Kendig, M.D., in his official and individual capacities; Warden M. Cruz, in her official and individual capacities; Doctor Victor Loranth, in his official and individual capacities; John/Jane Doe, Statutory Agent Officers, in their individual and official capacities; David M. Woodbury, M.D.; Timothy R. Wagner, M.D.; Sharon Poston, CEO, Defendants.

ORDER

David C. Norton United States District Judge

The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the FTCA claims against defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons and any individually named defendant be dismissed, that the Bivens claims against defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States of America, David M. Woodbury, M.D., Timothy R. Wagner, M.D., and Sharon Poston, CEO be dismissed, and that the negligence or medical malpractice claims against defendants Doctor Victor Loranth, Woodbury and Wagner be dismissed. It was further recommended that defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons, Woodbury and Wagner be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).[1] No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is AFFIRMED, and the following claims are DISMISSED from the amended complaint: (1) FTCA claims against defendant Federal Bureau of Prisons and any individually named defendant; (2) Bivens claims against defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States of America, Woodbury, Wagner and Poston; and (3) negligence or medical malpractice claims against defendants Loranth, Woodbury and Wagner.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Federal Bureau of Prisons, Woodbury and Wagner are DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.