Sarratt v. South Carolina Department of Corrections ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Michael Anthony Sarratt, a/k/a Michael ) Case No. 8:16-cv-03486-DCC A. Sarratt, a/k/a Goddess Shuggar ) Sarratt, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Bryan P. Stirling, Director, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1 ECF No. 134. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 142. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. ECF No. 145. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and the time to do so has lapsed.2 1 The Court granted in part and denied in part with leave to refile a previous motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 119. 2 The Court notes that the Report was remailed on July 8, 2019, and has calculated the time for objections from that date. 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). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment [134] is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge August 2, 2019 Spartanburg, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.