Moore v. Inabinet
5:20-cv-04229
| D.S.C. | Nov 19, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Tony L. Moore, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 action against several corrections officials.
- The case was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial matters.
- Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment; Moore filed a response in opposition and his own motion for summary judgment.
- The magistrate judge issued a Report recommending grant of Defendants’ summary judgment, denial of Moore’s cross‑motion, and dismissal of the case.
- The Report was mailed to Moore, was not returned undeliverable, and Moore filed no specific objections.
- The district court reviewed the Report, found no clear error, adopted it, granted Defendants’ motion, denied Moore’s motion, and dismissed the action (Nov. 19, 2021). Notice of appeal rights was given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Moore's § 1983 claims | Moore opposed MSJ and maintained his constitutional claims warrant relief | Defendants argued no genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law | Court adopted magistrate's recommendation and granted Defendants' MSJ |
| Whether Moore's cross‑motion for summary judgment should be granted | Moore moved for summary judgment in his favor | Defendants opposed and argued disputed facts and legal insufficiency | Court denied Moore's motion |
| Whether the magistrate judge's Report required de novo review | Moore did not file specific objections to the Report | Defendants relied on lack of objections to support adopting the Report | Court applied the standard that specific objections are required for de novo review, found none, and did not perform de novo review of unobjected portions |
| Whether the Report was properly served and receipted | Moore received the Report at the address on file (no objection filed) | Defendants noted the Report was mailed and not returned | Court presumed receipt, treated absence of objections as waiver, and adopted the Report |
Key Cases Cited
- Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68 (4th Cir. 1985) (district court retains responsibility for final determination)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (procedural framework for magistrate reports and party objections)
- Farmer v. McBride, [citation="177 Fed. App'x 327"] (4th Cir. 2006) (de novo review required only for specific objections)
- Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1982) (general/conclusory objections insufficient to trigger de novo review)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (court may adopt magistrate recommendation absent objections)
- Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734 (D.S.C. 2015) (no explanation required to adopt report when no objections are filed)