Jones v. Correctional Care Solutions, et al, No. 0:2009cv00269 - Document 98 (D.S.C. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 95 Report and Recommendations, granting 75 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Correctional Care Solutions, granting 79 Motion for Summary Judgment,, filed by Sgt Klausen, NFN Micken, Dennis A Tracy, James R Mett. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 6/28/2010. (jpet, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Dwight Xavier Jones, #969277, Plaintiff, vs. Correctional Care Solutions; Dennis A. Tracy; Sgt. Klausen, Lexington County Detention Center; NFN Mickens, Lexington County Detention Center; and James R. Metts, Lexington County Detention Center, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 0:09-269-HMH-PJG OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006). To the extent Plaintiff s June letters to Magistrate Judge Gossett and Larry Propes are objections to the Report and Recommendation, those objections are non-specific, unrelated to 1 the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims. In the absence of specific objections to the magistrate judge s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court 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). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Gossett s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendants motions for summary judgment, docket numbers 75 and 79, are granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina June 28, 2010 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The Plaintiff is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.