Filed: Nov. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The pro se plaintiff, Mitchell Sumpter, is pretrial detainee house at the Georgetown County Detention Center (GCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his medical treatment at the GCDC. 1 He claims he has been subjected to negligence, cruel and unusual punishment, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He seeks monetary damages in exc
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The pro se plaintiff, Mitchell Sumpter, is pretrial detainee house at the Georgetown County Detention Center (GCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his medical treatment at the GCDC. 1 He claims he has been subjected to negligence, cruel and unusual punishment, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He seeks monetary damages in exce..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
The pro se plaintiff, Mitchell Sumpter, is pretrial detainee house at the Georgetown County Detention Center (GCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights in connection with his medical treatment at the GCDC.1 He claims he has been subjected to negligence, cruel and unusual punishment, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He seeks monetary damages in excess of $3 million.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action2 has prepared a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 99) and opines that the motion for summary judgment by defendants Nurse Connie, Nurse Doran, and Dr. Reeves (the "medical defendants") should be granted.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation which was entered on the docket on September 15, 2014. However, the plaintiff did not file timely objections to the Report and the time within which to do so has expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge notes in her Report that the plaintiff's claims have been evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment because he was a pretrial detainee at the relevant times. The Medical Defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to establish that his medical needs were sufficiently serious or that his treatment rose to the level of deliberate indifference. The Magistrate Judge agrees with the Medical Defendants that their summary judgment motion should be granted.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is proper and it is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58) of defendants Nurse Dorean, Doctor Reeves, and Nurse Connie is hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
