From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heath v. Sterling

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Feb 14, 2024
C. A. 8:22-4148-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2024)

Opinion

C. A. 8:22-4148-HMH-JDA

02-14-2024

Decorian L. Heath, Plaintiff, v. Brian Sterling, Director; Charles Williams, Warden; John Palmer, Deputy Warden; Harouff, Captain; Amy Enloe, Nurse Practictioner, Defendants.


OPINION & ORDER

HENRY M. HERLONG, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline 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 Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 26, is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order, ECF No. 37, is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Heath v. Sterling

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Feb 14, 2024
C. A. 8:22-4148-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2024)
Case details for

Heath v. Sterling

Case Details

Full title:Decorian L. Heath, Plaintiff, v. Brian Sterling, Director; Charles…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

Date published: Feb 14, 2024

Citations

C. A. 8:22-4148-HMH-JDA (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2024)