From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Argot v. Harden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jan 10, 2013
C/A No. 4:11-2755-MBS (D.S.C. Jan. 10, 2013)

Opinion

C/A No. 4:11-2755-MBS

01-10-2013

Candy Argot, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Oliver Harden, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff Candy Argot is an inmate in custody of the Columbia Regional Care Center in Columbia, South Carolina. Plaintiff filed a complaint on October 12, 2011, alleging that Defendants violated her constitutional rights in various respects. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III for pretrial handling.

This matter is before the court on motions to dismiss filed by Defendant Joy NLN on May 23, 2012; Defendant Columbia Regional Care Center on June 13, 2012; and Defendants Officer Rosin, Nurse Mills, Rochelle Priester, and Tangela NLN on June 14, 2012. On September 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Joy NLN and Rosin, Mills, Priester, and Tangela NLN be granted, and that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Columbia Regional Care Center be denied. In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Leroy NLN be dismissed as a party. No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. 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).

The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Defendants Joy NLN, Leroy NLN, Rosin, Mills, Priester, and Tangela NLN are dismissed without prejudice, and their respective motions granted (ECF Nos. 64, 76). Defendant Columbia Regional Care Center's motion to dismiss is denied. The matter is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Margaret B. Seymour

Chief United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina January 10, 2013.


Summaries of

Argot v. Harden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jan 10, 2013
C/A No. 4:11-2755-MBS (D.S.C. Jan. 10, 2013)
Case details for

Argot v. Harden

Case Details

Full title:Candy Argot, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Oliver Harden, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Jan 10, 2013

Citations

C/A No. 4:11-2755-MBS (D.S.C. Jan. 10, 2013)

Citing Cases

Weatherall v. Fox

(d) that the plaintiff was injured.Argot v. Harden, No. 4:11-CV-2755-MBS-TER, 2013 WL 625528, at *7 (D.S.C.…

Oakman v. Lincare Inc.

2012); Hernandez v. Barfield, Civil Action No. 5:11-00641-TLW-KDW, 2012 WL 4344613 (D.S.C. June 29, 2012);…