Smith v. Meeks, No. 1:2015cv02572 - Document 36 (D.S.C. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 33 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendant's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment; and dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/25/2016. (mwal)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Meeks Doc. 36 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Al James Smith, #23731-056, Plaintiff, vs. J. Meeks, Warden, FCI Wiliamsburg; David Massa; and Victor Loranth, ) Civil Action No. 1:15-2572-BHH ) ) ) ) ORDER AND OPINION ) ) ) ) Defendants. Plaintiff Al James Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial handling and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29). On July 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Hodges issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 33.) The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 33 at 17.) Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on August 15, 2016. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Report or may recommit Dockets.Justia.com the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and to evince no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge August 25, 2016 Greenville, South Carolina ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
]]>
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.
