From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arthur v. Hawks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON / GREENWOOD DIVISION
Mar 24, 2021
C.A. No. 8:20-1063-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2021)

Opinion

C.A. No. 8:20-1063-HMH-JDA

03-24-2021

Timothy W. Arthur, formerly 31255-171, Plaintiff, v. Ms. M. Hawks, RN; Officer Patina Walton-Battle; Warden S.W. Phelps; H. Lopez, Physician; Officer A. Alicia-Rodriguez, Therapist; Officer L. Newcomb, HSA Medical Services, Defendants.


OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, 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 makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).

The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Defendants' motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment [Document 39] is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
March 24, 2021

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Arthur v. Hawks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON / GREENWOOD DIVISION
Mar 24, 2021
C.A. No. 8:20-1063-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2021)
Case details for

Arthur v. Hawks

Case Details

Full title:Timothy W. Arthur, formerly 31255-171, Plaintiff, v. Ms. M. Hawks, RN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON / GREENWOOD DIVISION

Date published: Mar 24, 2021

Citations

C.A. No. 8:20-1063-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2021)

Citing Cases

Holmes v. Borck

Accordingly, the undersigned is constrained to recommend granting Defendant's Motion. See Garcia-Calderon,…

Gong Yong v. Warden FCI Edgefield

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends granting Defendants' Motion. See Garcia-Calderon, No. CV…