The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kerwin E. Brown, C/A No. 2:19-cv-1994-JFA-MGB
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
Joseph W. Brown Jr. and Ms. Tribbles,
Defendants.
Kerwin E. Brown (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has brought this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that jail officer Joseph Brown attacked him and Ms.
Tribbles, one of the jail’s nurses, failed to give him proper medical treatment. (ECF No. 17). In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was
referred to a Magistrate Judge for review.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint in part. (ECF No. 17). The Report recommends that this Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Tribbles in its entirety, and the portion of Plaintiff’s claim
1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 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
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
against Defendant Brown seeking damages in his official capacity. (ECF No. 20). However, the
Report recommends that Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Brown for excessive force should not
be dismissed as it is sufficient to survive initial screening. (ECF No. 20). The Report sets forth in
detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts
and standards without a recitation.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket
on September 19, 2019. (ECF No. 20). The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections
by September October 3, 2019. (ECF No. 20). However, Plaintiff failed to file any objections to
the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court
is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, as well as the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts
and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 20). Thus, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is summarily dismissed in
part. (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Joseph Brown seeking damages in his
official capacity is dismissed and Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Tribbles is dismissed. (ECF
No. 17). Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Joseph Brown will continue forward.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cptogh Cader
December 2, 2019 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge