Bennett v. Wimberly ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Kevin Tyrone Bennett, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-198-BHH v. ) ) Katrina Hall and Rhonda Marcale ) ORDER Blackmon, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated in the Dorchester County Jail. On August 28, 2020, the remaining Defendants in this action, Katrina Hall (“Nurse Hall”) and Rhonda Blackmon (“Nurse Blackmon”) filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On November 17, 2020, Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 82) and incorporates it herein, and the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 66). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge December 17, 2020 Charleston, South Carolina 2