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.

Rivera v. Stirling

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

April 29, 2019

Kenneth Syncere Rivera, a/k/a Kenneth D. Rivera, a/k/a Kenneth Rivera, Plaintiff,
v.
Bryan P. Stirling, Mrs. Trulls, Karal Berry, Mr. Stephon, Defendants.

          ORDER

         This 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).

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The 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[1] 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 No. 61.)

         The 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.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The 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, 2012).

         III. DISCUSSION

         On 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.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         After a 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).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] 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 ...


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.