United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Kenneth Syncere Rivera, a/k/a Kenneth D. Rivera, a/k/a Kenneth Rivera, Plaintiff,
Bryan P. Stirling, Mrs. Trulls, Karal Berry, Mr. Stephon, Defendants.
matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report")
filed on March 6, 2019 (ECF No. 67). The court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report
and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set
out in the Report, the court GRANTS
Defendants Bryan P. Stirling Mrs. Trulls, Karal Berry, and
Mr. Stephon's (collectively, "Defendants")
Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 54, 57).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards,
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 67 at 1-11.) On August 7, 2017,
Plaintiff Kenneth Syncere Rivera, proceeding pro seand in
forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants, with deliberate indifference and in violation of
South Carolina Department of Corrections policy and the
Eighth Amendment, denied Plaintiff his prescribed migraine
medication. (Id. at 4-5; ECF No. 1-1 at 3-5.) On
December 17 and 21, 2018, Defendants filed Motions for
Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 54, 57.) Also on December 21,
2018, the Magistrate Judge entered a
Roseboro order, advising Plaintiff of the summary
judgment procedures and the consequences of failing to
adequately respond. (ECF No. 59.) On January 4, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendants' Motions. (ECF
Magistrate Judge entered her Report on March 6, 2019. (ECF
No. 67.) The Magistrate Judge found "Plaintiffs request
for medication in the pill line was properly denied pursuant
to prison policy, and nothing in the record suggests that
those actions were the result of deliberate indifference to
Plaintiffs medical needs rather than simple adherence to
prison policy." (Id. at 12.) Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants' Motions
for Summary Judgment. (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff filed
Objections to the Report on, March 18, 2019. (ECF No. 69.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court;
the responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. SeeMathewsv. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). This court engages in ade novo review of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the
parties have made specific objections. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part,
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the
matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Also, the court is required to interpret pro se
documents liberally and will hold those documents to a less
stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) ("A
document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed," and "a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106(1976))); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151
(4th Cir. 1978); Hardin v. UnitedStates, C/ANo.
7:12-cv-0118-GRA, 2012 WL 3945314, at *l (D.S.C. Sept. 10,
March 6, 2019, as part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge
notified the parties of their right to file
specific, written objections by March 20, 2019. (ECF
No. 67-1.) Plaintiffs Objections restate arguments he
advanced in his Complaint and, therefore, "do not direct
the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendation." Orpiano,
687 F.2d at 47. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendations
without modification. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Absent specific objections, the
court must only ensure that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendations.
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R Civ. P. 72
advisory committee's note); Orpiano, 687 F.2d at
47 ("Courts have also held de novo review to be
unnecessary in analogous situations when a party makes
general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed
findings and recommendations."). Additionally, if a
party fails to file specific, written objections to the
Report, the party forfeits the right to appeal the
court's decision concerning the Report. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Thomasv.Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.
1984). Accordingly, construing Plaintiffs Objections
liberally, the court finds he failed to advance any
specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, and the court adopts the Report herein.
Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation provides
an accurate summary of the iacts and law in this case.
Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 67) and incorporates it
herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report,
the court GRANTS Defendants' Motions
fc>r Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 54, 57).
IS SO ORDERED.
 In Roseboro v. Garrison, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held
that district courts are required to provide pro se litigants
with an explanation of summary judgment ...