Green v. Bufford et al, No. 0:2008cv03323 - Document 61 (D.S.C. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 57 Report and Recommendations, granting 53 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Roy Clipherd, Kevin Williams, Calvin Wiley, Curtis Bufford. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 6/14/2010. (jpet, ) Modified to replace with corrected document on 6/14/2010 (jpet, ).

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Willie Marvin Green #334538, Plaintiff, v. Curtis Bufford; Calvin Wiley; Kevin Williams and Roy Clipherd, official and individual capacity, Defendants. __________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 0:08-cv-3323-GRA ORDER (Written Opinion) ) ) ) ) This matter comes before the Court for review of Magistrate Judge Gossett s Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., and filed on June 19, 2010. Plaintiff filed this action on December 1, 2008, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under established local procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge Gossett made a careful review of all parties submissions. Magistrate Judge Gossett recommends that this Court grant Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. This Court adopts the magistrate s recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 1 of 3 364, 365 (1982). The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions." Id. In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Plaintiff has filed no objections. After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate s Report and Recommendation accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. [Signature Block on Next Page] 2 of 3 June 14 , 2010 Anderson, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal. 3 of 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.