Summary
This United States District Court order grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies the plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after reviewing the record for clear error, noting that the plaintiff failed to file timely objections. The denial of appointed counsel was based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances under controlling Fourth Circuit precedent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report when no objection is filed, or may adopt the report if no clear error is found.
- Whether Plaintiff is entitled to appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) based on the factors set forth in Jenkins v. Woodard.
Holdings
- In the absence of a timely objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review of a magistrate's report but must determine that there is no clear error; if none, the report may be adopted.
- Plaintiff is not entitled to appointed counsel because he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances under the Jenkins v. Woodard factors.
Key quotations
“The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court.”
“The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.”
Factual background
Plaintiff Derrick Timothy Davis, a prisoner, sued Captain Sarah Samuel, Sergeant James Samuel, and Sergeant Shannon Stubb over alleged prison‑condition violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiff moved to have counsel appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment and the court considered Plaintiff's counsel‑appointment motion.
Procedural history
The matter arose in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina; no prior adjudication is noted.