United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Travis J. Wright, Plaintiff,
K. Newsome and Lt. Vetter, Defendants.
matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
(ECF No. 77) filed on June 25, 2019. The Report addresses
Plaintiff Travis J. Wright's (“Plaintiff”)
suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and recommends that the
court grant Defendant Lt. Vetter's
(“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 60). For the reasons stated herein, the court
ACCEPTS the Report and
GRANTS Defendant's Motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards
which this court incorporates herein without a full
recitation. (ECF No. 77.) As brief background, on June 11,
2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his
Complaint, alleging constitutional violations pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed his Amended
Complaint on November 30, 2018. (ECF No. 36.) In his Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged deficiencies with respect to the
food served at the Lexington County Detention Center
(“LCDC”) during his time there as a federal
detainee. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that
“on a regular basis, ” he was “served hot
food below serving temp[erature]”; the food was
“not sanitized”; and food lacked
“nutritious balance.” (Id. at 7-8.)
Additionally, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to
properly address and process Plaintiff's grievances
following his complaints about the alleged deficiencies.
February 25, 2019, Defendant Lt. Vetter filed his Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 60.) On February 26, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro Order (ECF No.
61), which apprised Plaintiff of the procedures surrounding
summary judgment. See Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (requiring the court to provide an
explanation of the dismissal and summary judgment procedures
to pro se litigants). On March 25, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant K.
Newsome be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's
failure to execute service under Rule 4(m) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
25, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued the instant Report
granting Defendant Lt. Vetter's February 26, 2019 Motion
for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 77.) The Report reasoned that
“Plaintiff has failed to show that [the] alleged
deficiencies in the food resulted in a serious deprivation or
that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent.”
(Id. at 10.) Moreover, the Report found that there
was not a genuine issue of material fact in which Plaintiff
could survive Defendant's Motion. Lastly, the Report
concluded that, even if Plaintiff's claims were true,
Plaintiff's alleged violations of policies and procedures
do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 5.) For these
reasons, the Report ultimately recommended that the court
grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no
presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Id. at 271. As
such, the court is charged with making de novo
determinations of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
parties were apprised of their opportunity to file objections
to the Report on July 2, 2019. (ECF No. 80.) Objections to
the Report were due by July 16, 2019 if filed electronically.
(Id.) Further, objections were due by July 19, 2019,
if a party was served by mail or otherwise allowed under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Id.) Upon
review of the record, Defendant has not filed any objections
to the Report. On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff “move[d] in
mercy of the court” but failed to file any specific
objections to the Report or illustrate any clear error in the
Report. (See ECF No. 82.) Failure to file specific
written objections to the Report results in a party's
waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such 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
absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the Report and must only discern whether the Report
contains clear error. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). In the
instant case, the court has carefully examined the findings
of the Report and concludes that specific objections were not
filed by either party, and the Report does not contain clear
error. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report herein.
See Camby, 718 F.2d at 199; Diamond, 416
F.3d at 315.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 77) and incorporates it
herein. Therefore, the court GRANTS
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 71).