Opinion
C. A. 2:21-CV-03090-JMC-MGB
12-08-2021
BRITTANY REID, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Derrick Lamont Furtick, PLAINTIFF, v. RANDALL WILLIAMS, et. al., DEFENDANTS.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This is a civil action filed by Plaintiff Brittany Reid, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Derrick Lamont Furtick, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Derrick Lamont Furtick's serious medical needs, resulting in Furtick's death while incarcerated at Lieber Correctional Institution. (Dkt. No. 1.) Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal. (Dkt. No. 7.) Defendants seek to dismiss all claims brought by Plaintiff in her individual capacity. (Id.) Defendants assert that as Furtick's mother and the personal representative of his estate, she does not have adequate standing to bring suit in her individual capacity. (Id.)
On December 6, 2021, defense counsel emailed to the Court a proposed consent order, indicating that Plaintiff consented to the dismissal of all claims brought in her individual capacity. Nothing was filed in the record, however. On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal, stating that she “consents to the Defendants' proposed Consent Order submitted for consideration on December 6, 2021.” (Dkt. No. 21.)
Because Plaintiff consents to the dismissal of all claims brought in her individual capacity, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal be GRANTED. The undersigned further recommends that the Clerk of Court amend the docket to remove Plaintiffs individual capacity status.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).