United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
ORDER AND OPINION
RICHARD MARK GERGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
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.
Background and Relevant Facts
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.
Pro Se Pleadings
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).
Magistrate's Report and Recommendation
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).
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.)
to the R. & R. were due by February 26,
2018. 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.
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 ...