United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
C. Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. ECF No. 130. Plaintiff filed a Response in
Opposition, Defendant filed a Reply, and Plaintiff filed a
Sur-Reply. ECF Nos. 153, 155, 157. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). The
Magistrate Judge ordered additional briefing on January 24,
2018. ECF No. 172. Defendants filed supplemental
briefing on February 26, 2018. ECF No. 184.
26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and
denied in part. ECF No. 215. Plaintiff filed objections to
the Report. ECF No. 223. The Court granted in part, denied in
part, and held in abeyance in part the Motion for Summary
Judgment; the claims that were held in abeyance were
recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further evaluation.
ECF No. 210. On December 13, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that summary judgment be granted with respect to
Plaintiff's remaining claims. ECF No. 248. The Magistrate
Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements
for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no
objections, and the time to do so has passed.
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 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 will review the Report 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 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)).
considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and
the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear
error and agrees with the Report's
recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report
by reference in this Order. The Motion for Summary Judgment
 is GRANTED and with respect to
Plaintiff's claim for supervisory liability regarding his
claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
against Defendants Bragg, Hicks, and Canada and his claim for
supervisory liability under the FTCA. As there are no
remaining claims against Defendant Hicks, he is dismissed
from this action.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 The Magistrate Judge requested
additional briefing as a result of the recent Supreme Court
decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S.Ct. 1843, 1855
(2017), whereby the Supreme Court emphasized that expanding
the Bivens remedy is disfavored, and further
highlighted the “special factors” a court must
perform to determine whether a Bivens action should
be available in a new context.
 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a
Motion Requesting for Findings to be Placed on Record
Concerning Plaintiff's “Bystander Liability”
Claims on January 7, 2019. Out of an abundance of caution for
a pro se Plaintiff, the Court has thoroughly reviewed this