Opinion
C. A. 2:20-cv-2978-JFA-MGB
11-16-2021
Darrell L. Goss, Sr., Plaintiff, v. James W. Larry, Troy O. Rock, Carmen Carpenter, Tanesha Edwards, Williemary Scott, Marcus Russell, Johnny Rich, Nathan G. Saverence, Katherine L. Kennedy, South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendants.
ORDER
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., United States District Judge
Plaintiff Darrell L. Goss, Sr. a self-represented prisoner, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference, and a state law claim for negligence. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings, including consideration of Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
After reviewing the motion for summary judgment and all responsive briefing, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation ("Report"). (ECF No. 85). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) should be granted.
The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on October 12, 2021. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by October 26, 2021. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate's Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 85). Consequently, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.