Summary
granting summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim based on a detention facility withholding some of his medications where the plaintiff "failed to specify what medications were not received" and the record revealed that he consistently "received prompt medical attention"
Summary of this case from Petty v. KrauseOpinion
C/A No. 6:05-2497-GRA-WMC.
May 24, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation filed on April 27, 2006, and made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C. Plaintiff filed this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 29, 2005. On November 23, 2005 the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 28, 2005, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. The plaintiff filed his response to the defendant's motion on February 28, 2006. The magistrate recommends that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. For the reasons stated herein, the recommendations of the magistrate are adopted, and the defendant's summary judgment motion is granted.
Plaintiff brings this action pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
The magistrate 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id.
In the absence of objections to the 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). Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.
Plaintiff has failed to file a specific objection to the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, rather he merely restates his complaint, which does not constitute "specific objections" as required under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting it as the order of the Court. Id.
After a review of the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, this Court finds the report is based upon the proper law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to Appoint Counsel and motion for Discovery filed on May 18, 2006 are DISMISSED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.