Tucker v. Olsen et al, No. 0:2009cv03180 - Document 68 (D.S.C. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 64 Report and Recommendations, granting 58 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Major Bush, LT Williams, Warden McCall, Mr Claytor, Bob Olsen, denying 39 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Billy Shane Tucker, denying 23 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Billy Shane Tucker. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/19/2011. (jpet, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tucker v. Olsen et al Doc. 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Billy Shane Tucker, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Bob Olsen; Warden McCall; Mr. Claytor; ) LT Williams; Major Bush, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C.A. No. 0:09-cv-03180-JMC OPINION & ORDER This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 64], filed on October 20, 2010, recommending Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 23] and Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. # 39] be denied. The Magistrate Judge further recommends Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 58] be granted. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation without a recitation. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 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 objections are made, and the court Dockets.Justia.com may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). DISCUSSION Plaintiff Billy Shane Tucker is a pro se litigant petitioning for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges (1) that he was unlawfully deprived of certain personal property including his mattress, bedding, cup, and eating utensil; (2) that as a result of having no mattress he sustained injury to his back; (3) that he has been served cold food on unsanitary trays; and (4) that he was denied access to the media, including radios, newspapers, and magazines. After receiving the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff timely filed objections. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). 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). Upon review, the court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. 2 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 58] is granted. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 23] and Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. # 39] are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ J. Michelle Childs United States District Judge January 19, 2011 Greenville, South Carolina 3
]]>
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.
