Summary
granting summary judgment to the defendants where the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, two showers in September 2012; five showers in October 2012; three showers in November 2012; and two showers in December 2012, stating that "the facts are not sufficiently distinguishable from Davenport and other cases in which the opportunities to shower for inmates in segregated confinement were severely reduced"
Summary of this case from McNeill v. MelvinOpinion
Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00694-JMC
01-06-2014
Angelo Ham, Plaintiff, v. Warden McCall, LCI; Assoc. Warden Nolan, LCI; Assoc. Warden Brooks, LCI; Major Dean, LCI; SMU Admin. Oberman LCI; Commissary Hancock, LCI; Commissary Canty, LCI; Lt. Brown, LCI; Lt. Johnson, LCI; Lt. Richardson, LCI; Sgt. Butterbaugh, LCI; Sgt. McBride, LCI; Cpt. West, LCI; Ofc. Thompson, LCI; Ofc. Choice, LCI; Ofc. Dillman, LCI; Ofc. Wilson, LCI; Ofc. Barr, LCI; Sgt. Brown, LCI; H. Johnson, Sgt. LCI; Library Coordinator Desai, LCI; Cpt. Commander, LCI; and Ofc. Finklea, LCI, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), [ECF No. 76], filed on December 16, 2013, recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 32] be granted. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Report set forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on these matters which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The 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 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 to which specific objections are made, and 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).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [ECF No. 76-10]. However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "in the absence of a 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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, 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 Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and the record in this case. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 76]. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF NO. 32] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
January 6, 2014