United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Tequan L. Brown, Plaintiff,
Jim May, Jeffery Long, Alan Wilson, Jeffery Scott, Bryan P. Stirling, and Timothy R. Rainey, Defendants.
TIMOTHY M. CAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Tequan L. Brown, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). This
matter is before the court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States
Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C. (ECF No. 9).
The magistrate judge recommends that Defendants Jim May,
Jeffery Long, Alan Wilson, Jeffery Scott, and Timothy R.
Rainey be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without
issuance and service of process. Id.. Plaintiff was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF
No. 9 at 10). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 43).
Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to
make a final determination in this matter remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983). Rather, “in the absence of a 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to
the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to
appeal the district court's judgment based upon that
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the court
summarily dismiss all Defendants and claims, except
Plaintiff's failure to protect claim against defendant
Stirling. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff did not file any specific
objections. (ECF No. 44). Instead, he filed a general
objection to the Report and referred to his filing a motion
to amend his complaint. Id. In his objections,
Plaintiff states that he “objects to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation that Defendant Jim May,
Jeffery, Long, Alan Wilson, Timothy Scott, and Timothy R.
Rainey should be summarily dismissed without issuance and
service of process” and that he has filed a motion to
amend his complaint. (ECF No. 44). Subsequently, the
magistrate judge denied in part and granted in part
Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (ECF No. 45).
(ECF No. 54 at 1). She specifically denied his motion to
amend the claims, which she recommend be dismissed in her
Report because she found those amendments would be futile.
Id. The magistrate judge granted Plaintiff's
motion to amend his claims of failure to protect and
conditions of confinement claims against Stirling, Scott, and
Williams, and his deliberate indifference claims against May
and Long. Id. at 1-2.
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff reasserts the claims he raised
in his original complaint and adds a new defendant, Charles
Williams. (ECF Nos. 45). Further, Plaintiff alleges a failure
to protect claim against Scott, Williams, and Stirling, and
he raises a new conditions of confinement claim against
Scott, Williams, and Stirling. Finally, Plaintiff raises a
new deliberate indifference claim against May and Long.
Id. As noted above, the magistrate judge granted
Plaintiff's motion to amend his claims of failure to
protect and conditions of confinement claims against
Stirling, Scott, and Williams, and his deliberate
indifference claims against May and Long. Id. at
1-2. Thus, it now appears that the only Defendants who should
be dismissed are Wilson and Rainey. The court finds that
these two Defendants should be dismissed for the reasons
stated in the Report. (ECF No. 9 at 6, 8).
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts in part the Magistrate Judge's Report
(ECF No. 9). Accordingly, Defendants Alan Wilson and Timothy
R. Rainey are DISMISSED without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process.
IS SO ORDERED.
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 court granted Plaintiff's
motion for an extension of time within which to file
objections (ECF No. 27). (ECF No. 29).
Specifically, the magistrate judge
recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants May, Wilson, Scott, and Rainey for failure
to state a claim. (ECF No. 9 at 6-8). She also recommends
that Defendants Long and Rainey be dismissed because
Plaintiff did not seek any relief ...