Tynes v. Dr. McCree

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mario Tynes., C/A No. 8:23-cv-4664-JFA-WSB

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Dr. McCree, Nurse Driver, and Head Nurse Burdette,1

Defendants.

Mario Tynes, proceeding pro se, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 initial review. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial review of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 87 & 92). After reviewing the motions and all responsive briefing, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation2 (“Report”), which opines that Defendants’ motions for summary judgment should be granted. (ECF

1 Dr. McRee has been improperly identified as Dr. McCree, Samantha Burdette has been improperly identified as Head Nurse Burdette, and Lisa Driver has been improperly identified as Nurse Driver.

2 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). No. 103). 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 17, 2024. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by October 31, 2024. Id. Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has elapsed. 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 and prior filings indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. 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. 103). Consequently, Defendants’ Motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 87 & 92) are granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 14, 2024 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge