Mason v. Graham

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-00649
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Omari Keisaun Mason, #92182-809, C/A No. 4:25-cv-649-SAL-TER

Plaintiff,

v. ORD ER

Warden Graham, Warden Dunbar, Nurse Mims, Ms. Williams, Dr. Hagwood, Counselor Arens, Captain Walker,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Omari Keisaun Mason (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner in Pennsylvania, housed at the time of the incident at FCI-Williamsburg, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights against federal employees in their individual capacity under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending this court partially dismiss the complaint in this case. [ECF No. 16.] Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends the court summarily dismiss Defendants Warden Graham, Warden Dunbar, Ms. Williams, Dr. Hagwood, Counselor Arens, and Captain Walker. Id. at 4–5. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Id. at 6. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standards, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 16, and incorporates it by reference herein. The claims against Defendants Warden Graham, Warden Dunbar, Ms. Williams, Dr. Hagwood, Counselor Arens, and Captain Walker are summarily dismissed for the reasons offered in the Report. This matter remains with the magistrate judge for further handling of the case against Nurse Mims. IT ISSO ORDERED.

Sherr tk. May 6, 2025 Sherri AA Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge