Patterson v. Stirling et al, No. 2:2022cv03183 - Document 45 (D.S.C. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear e rror and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition of Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 12) and Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9).Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's R eport (ECF No. 17). The Court partially grants Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) and dismisses Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Stirling under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, as well as his § 1983 claim against Defenda nt Enloe for deliberate indifference to his conditions of confinement. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff's § 1983 claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and deliberate indifference to conditi ons of confinement against Defendants Palmer and Williams, and as to his claims against Defendants Enloe, Williams, and Palmer under South Carolina law. Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 12) is denied for 43 Report and Recommendation. Mot ion ADOPTED re 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, Motion DENIED re 12 MOTION to Remand filed by Michael Patterson, Motion partially GRANTED re 9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Charles Williams, Bryan Stirlin g, John Palmer, Amy Enloe, Motion DENIED re 12 MOTION to Remand filed by Michael Patterson, Motion partially GRANTED re 9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Charles Williams, Bryan Stirling, John Palmer, Amy Enloe. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/11/2022. (dgar)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Patterson v. Stirling et al 2:22-cv-03183-BHH-MGB Date Filed 01/11/23 Entry Number 45 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Michael Patterson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Bryan Stirling, Charles Williams, John ) Palmer, Amy Enloe, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 2:22-3183-BHH OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Michael Patterson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand (ECF No. 12) and Defendants Bryan Stirling, Charles Williams, John Palmer, and Amy Enloe’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings. On November 9, 2022, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 12) be denied, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) be granted in part and denied in part. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. An extension was granted giving Plaintiff until December 28, 2022 to file objections (ECF No. 30), but no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to Dockets.Justia.com 2:22-cv-03183-BHH-MGB Date Filed 01/11/23 Entry Number 45 Page 2 of 2 which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 12) and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9). Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 17). The Court partially grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) and dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Stirling under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, as well as his § 1983 claim against Defendant Enloe for deliberate indifference to his conditions of confinement. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement against Defendants Palmer and Williams, and as to his claims against Defendants Enloe, Williams, and Palmer under South Carolina law. Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 12) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge January 11, 2023 Charleston, South Carolina 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.
