Opinion
C/A NO. 0:11-543-CMC-PJG
02-03-2012
James H. Singletary, Plaintiff, v. Assistant Warden Fallen; Doctor Blocker; Administrator Rosario, all in their individual capacities, Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
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 Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation ("Report"). On January 17, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and this matter 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 January 31, 2012.
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 objections made, 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 argues, inter alia, that the Magistrate Judge overlooked an affidavit attached to his opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion, that he disagrees that negligence is not actionable in a Bivens action, that he "require[s]" care that is not available in prison, Obj. at 5, and that he has established evidence of deliberate indifference by Dr. Blocker. See generally Objections (ECF No. 47, filed Jan. 31, 2012). These objections, however, fail to undermine the legal and factual soundness of the Report. Therefore, they are without merit.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
February 3, 2012