Wright v. Webber

Full title: Allen Wright, Plaintiff, v. Jason Webber, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Aug 13, 2012

Civil Action No.: 1:11-2199-TLW-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 1:11-2199-TLW-SVH

08-13-2012

Allen Wright, Plaintiff, v. Jason Webber, et al., Defendants.

Terry L. Wooten

ORDER

On August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff, Allen Wright ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. # 1).

The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom this case had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that the remaining non-dispositive motions be denied as moot. (Doc. # 112). Objections were originally due by July 20, 2012. Plaintiff sought and obtained an extension of time to file objections and submitted his objections on August 6, 2012. (Doc. # 117). Defendants replied to those objections. (Doc. # 118). In conducting its review, the Court applies the following standard:

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the
Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.

Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).

In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. # 112). The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. # 76). Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, (Doc. # 101), and Motion for Discovery, (Doc. # 111), are therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 13, 2012

Florence, South Carolina

Terry L. Wooten

United States District Judge