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.

Sifford v. Drew

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

February 28, 2018

Tyrone Sifford, formerly # 12712-058 Plaintiff,
v.
Warden Darlene Drew, Warden FCI Bennettsville; Luis Berrios, M.D.; Julia E. Berrios, M.D.; Nestor Osorto, M.L.P., Defendants.

          ORDER AND OPINION

          RICHARD MARK GERGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 24) recommending that Plaintiffs Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. For the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the order of the Court.

         I. Background and Relevant Facts

         Plaintiff Tyrone Sifford filed this civil action alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge has thoroughly summarized the relevant facts of this case. (Dkt. No. 24 at 2-3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to schedule knee surgery for him over a period of years following a serious ACL injury he sustained in 2002. Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court requiring the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to provide him with appropriate medical care, including arthroscopic knee surgery, in addition to actual and compensatory damages of $250, 000, and punitive damages. When Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he was serving the remainder of his federal sentence on home detention. Plaintiff was released from the custody of the BOP on November 2017 and now lives in Charlotte, North Carolina.

         II. Legal Standards

         a. Pro Se Pleadings

         This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).

         b. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation

         The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         III. Discussion

         The Magistrate Judge explained in the R. & R. that this case is subject to summary dismissal because it is a duplicate filing. (Dkt. No. 24 at 5-7.) In Plaintiffs prior case, this Court dismissed the Amended Complaint, granting summary judgment for the Defendants after evaluating Plaintiffs medical records and determining that the treatment Plaintiff received was within the range of discretion courts afford to medical professionals. (Case No. 8:11-cv-3019-JDA-RMG, Dkt. Nos. 93, 94.)

         Objections to the R. & R. were due by February 26, 2018[1]. No party has filed Objections to the R. & R. In the absence of any specific objections, "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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts of this case.

         IV. Conclusion

         For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 24) as the order of the Court. Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice ...


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.