Opinion
C. A. 1:23-cv-4686-SAL
07-10-2024
Walter William Glass, Plaintiff, v. Jessica Lecompte, Program Director; MHO Edger; MHO Bridgeman; Sgt. Holms, a/k/a Holmes; and Lt. Blackburn, Defendants.
ORDER
Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge
Walter William Glass (“Plaintiff”), a pro se litigant and inmate, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Jessica Lecompte, mental health officer Edger, mental health officer Bridgeman, Sgt. Holmes, and Lt. Blackburn (collectively “Defendants”). On March 8, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 32.] On May 29, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 because Plaintiff has failed to carry the burden of showing Defendants ignored a substantial risk to Plaintiff. [ECF. No. 40.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Id. at 13. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired.
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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 40, and incorporates it by reference herein. As a result, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 32, is GRANTED pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
IT IS SO ORDERED.