Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Frederick v. Magill

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

July 28, 2016

Jessie Frederick, Plaintiff,
v.
John Magill, Director, S.C.D.M.H.; Holly Scaturo, Director, S V.P.T.P.; Kimberly Poholchuk, Program Coor., S
v.
P.T.P.; Warden Stevenson, Warden, B.R.C.F., all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

          Jessie Frederick, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          John Magill, Defendant, represented by David Allan DeMasters, Davidson and Lindemann & William Henry Davidson, II, Davidson and Lindemann.

          Holly Scaturo, Defendant, represented by David Allan DeMasters, Davidson and Lindemann & William Henry Davidson, II, Davidson and Lindemann.

          Kimberly Poholchuk, Defendant, represented by David Allan DeMasters, Davidson and Lindemann & William Henry Davidson, II, Davidson and Lindemann.

          Warden Stevenson, Defendant, represented by Eugene H. Matthews, Richardson Plowden and Robinson.

          OPINION & ORDER

          HENRY M. HERLONG, Jr., District Judge.

         This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.[1] Pursuant to a civil commitment, Jessie Frederick ("Frederick") resides in the South Carolina Department of Mental Health's Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program ("SVPTP"). Proceeding pro se, Frederick alleges several 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Defendants.[2] In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. (Report & Recommendation 1, 6, ECF No. 43.)

         Frederick filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

         Upon review, the court finds that Frederick's objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. Despite reasserting his claims and providing additional factual background, Frederick's objections have failed to address or object to the specific grounds on which the magistrate judge based her recommendation. Accordingly, after review, the court finds that Frederick's objections are without merit. Therefore, after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's Report and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

         It is therefore

         ORDERED that the Defendants' motions for summary judgment, docket numbers 32 and 35, are granted.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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