From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Khan v. S. Health Partners

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Nov 22, 2019
C.A. No. 9:18-2180-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2019)

Opinion

C.A. No. 9:18-2180-HMH-BM

11-22-2019

Aaron Shah Khan, Plaintiff, v. Southern Health Partners, Deputy Wilson, Deputy McDuffie, Sgt. Bradly, Lt. Eric Riddel, Nurse NFN Shellie, Deputy Craig Hallett, Deputy Timmerman, Nurse NFN Angel, Brandi Galloway, Sherry Hammick, Dr. NFN Williams, Deputy Gibson, Nurse NFN Robyn, Deputy Arthurs, Deputy Merrick, Deputy Cobb, Deputy Roberts, Lt. Butts, Lt. Hettich, Lt. Bowman, Lt. Clamp, Cpl. Brodus and Cpl. Buggs, Defendants.


OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, 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 Marchant's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Defendants' motions for summary judgment, docket numbers 55 and 60, are granted, and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina
November 22, 2019

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

Khan v. S. Health Partners

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION
Nov 22, 2019
C.A. No. 9:18-2180-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2019)
Case details for

Khan v. S. Health Partners

Case Details

Full title:Aaron Shah Khan, Plaintiff, v. Southern Health Partners, Deputy Wilson…

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

Date published: Nov 22, 2019

Citations

C.A. No. 9:18-2180-HMH-BM (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2019)

Citing Cases

Lyles v. McRee

Cf. Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, 40 F.3d 1176, 1188-1189 (11th Cir. 1994)(“An inmate who…