Opinion
C/A No. 0:18-cv-02319-DCC
05-13-2019
Anthony Glover Dixon, Plaintiff, v. Aiken County Detention Center, Southern Health Partner, Dr. Williams, Captain Galliam, Dep. Jones, Brandy Galloway, Nurse Angel, S. Donaldson, S. Shutters, Nurse Sherry Hammock, D. Bussey, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On January 4, 2019, and January 10, 2019, Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 51, 55. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, and some of the Defendants filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 59, 60. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On March 28, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Motions be granted. ECF No. 62. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed.
The Court notes that the Report was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 64. Plaintiff was explicitly warned that it was his responsibility to keep the Court informed, in writing, of any change of address. ECF No. 5.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of 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." (citation omitted)).
After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report's recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. The Motions for Summary Judgment [51, 55] are GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge May 13, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.