From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Byars

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jul 11, 2013
C/A NO. 6:12-1089-CMC-KFM (D.S.C. Jul. 11, 2013)

Opinion

C/A NO. 6:12-1089-CMC-KFM

07-11-2013

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Plaintiff, v. William R. Byars, Jr., Director; Dr. Moore, Director of Medical Service; Dr. T. Byrne, ACI; Dr. G. Amonitti, LCI; Nurse NFN Derrick ACI Health Care Authority; Wayne C. McCabe, Warden LCI; Cpl. T Simpson, Allendale Correctional Institution; Cpl. Melvin Drayton, Allendale Correction Institution; Elizabeth Holcomb, Nurse Praction, Lieber Correction Institution; Lisa Hopolomber, Nurse Practice, Lieber Correction Institution; Star Connelly, Nurse Practice, Lieber Correction Institution; Joseph McFadden, Associate Warden, Lieber Correction Institution; Sylna Jones, Mail Room Supervisory, Lieber Correction Institution; Luclnecia Bryant, Mail Room Assistant, Lieber Correction Institution; Rose Montee, Business Office, Lieber Correction Institution, Defendants.


OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On June 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, that any other pending motions be dismissed as moot, and the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on July 8, 2013.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

After conducting a de novo review as to Plaintiff's objections to the Report, and considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff's objections, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.

Plaintiff's objections are repetitive and without merit. Therefore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 109) is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's pending motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 87) is hereby moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
July 11, 2013


Summaries of

Martin v. Byars

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jul 11, 2013
C/A NO. 6:12-1089-CMC-KFM (D.S.C. Jul. 11, 2013)
Case details for

Martin v. Byars

Case Details

Full title:Henry W. Martin, Jr., Plaintiff, v. William R. Byars, Jr., Director; Dr…

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

Date published: Jul 11, 2013

Citations

C/A NO. 6:12-1089-CMC-KFM (D.S.C. Jul. 11, 2013)

Citing Cases

Martin v. Byars

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by…