Smyth v. Urch et al

Filing 143

ORDER RULING ON 31 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION dismissing Defendants Amandy Blanton and William J. Church without prejudice and without service of process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are dismissed without prejudice: (1) equal protection; (2) prison grievance system; (3) deprivation of person property (4) violation of the PREA; (5) claims against Defendant Urch for allegedly refusing to allow delivery of all mail, provide adequate food portions, provid e hygiene items, and provide over the counter pain medications; and (6) claims for violations of Plaintiffs right to vote, right to bond, and right to fair, public, and speedy trial. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/14/2015. (gmil) Modified to edit docket text on 5/14/2015 (gmil).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Keith A. Smyth,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Neal Urch; Amandy Blanton; )
William J. Church; Deputy J. Brock; )
Deputy K. Ashley,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 0:14-cv-3476-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Keith A. Smyth, (“Plaintiff”), a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, brought
this civil action against the above captioned Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 28,
2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl., ECF No. 13. This matter is before the Court after the
issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett.1 See R & R, ECF No. 31. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that several of
the claims alleged in the Amended Compliant be summarily dismissed and that Defendants Amandy
Blanton and William J. Church be dismissed in toto without prejudice and without service of
process. See id. at 6. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R & R on October 24, 2014. See Pl.’s
Objs., ECF No. 44.

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge’s review of Plaintiff's
complaint was conducted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The district
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The district court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
[C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of a specific objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.
2005).
DISCUSSION2
In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that several of Plaintiff’s claims be
dismissed and that Defendants Amandy Blanton and William J. Church be dismissed in toto. First,
the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff’s equal protection claim fails because he has not alleged he
is a member of a protected class or that any Defendant treated him differently than similarly situated

2

The facts of this case, including citations to the record, were completely and accurately set forth in
the Magistrate Judge’s R & R. See ECF No. 31 at 1–2. Briefly stated, Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint alleges various issues with the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement.
2

individuals. See ECF No. 31 at 4–5. Next, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that Plaintiff’s claims
related to the grievance system should be dismissed as there is no constitutional right to a grievance
system. See id. at 5. The Magistrate Judge then found that Plaintiff’s deprivation of personal
property claims fail because he has a meaningful post-deprivation remedy under South Carolina
law. See id. at 5–6. Next, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim that
Defendant Blanton violated the Prison Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”), as the PREA does not
provide for a private right of action. See id. at 6. The Magistrate Judge then turned to Plaintiff’s
claim against Defendant Church, who he appears to allege was a supervisor who had knowledge of
or approved Defendant Blanton’s disciplinary charge against Plaintiff. She recommended dismissal
of this claim as well due to the fact that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable constitutional claim
against Defendant Blanton. See id. at 7. Next, the Magistrate Judge stated that several of Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Urch should be dismissed as they had already been asserted in a separate
action pending in this District. See id. at 7–8; see also Smyth v. Urch, No. 0:13-2691-RBH-PJG
(D.S.C. 2013). Finally, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s claims for violation of his
right to vote, right to post bond, and right to a fair, public, and speedy trial should also be dismissed
as he did not allege that any named Defendant violated such rights. See ECF No. 31 at 8–9.
Plaintiff timely filed objections. In his objections, Plaintiff first requests that the Court
“leave the lawsuit intact with the current defendants.” See ECF No. 44 at 1. Next, Plaintiff asserts
that Defendant Blanton should issue a warrant on other inmates to correct PREA issues. See id.
Plaintiff then appears to contend that Defendant Church improperly moved him from one area of
housing in the prison to a different are due to a “PREA claim which I was or have find not guilty.”

3

See id. Plaintiff avers that he will dismiss the charges against these defendants once these issues are
corrected. See id. at 2.
Plaintiff also attached a statement to his objections and several letters between himself and
the ACLU. See Statement, ECF No. 44-1; Letters, ECF No. 44-2. The letters are not relevant to the
findings in the R & R.

However, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s statement to constitute

additional objections to the R & R. In his statement, Plaintiff first contends that Defendant Church
treated him unfairly and unequally because he asked to be moved to different housing but his
request was denied. See ECF No. 44-1 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that his request was denied because
Defendant Church is aware Plaintiff is bisexual, and that Defendant Church judged him because of
this. See id. Plaintiff also makes unclear allegations against Defendant Urch regarding his housing
situation (it appears he alleges Urch also denied a request by Plaintiff to be moved to different
housing, which he asserts violated his rights). See id. at 2. Plaintiff then argues that Defendant
Urch took his “orange panties” and engaged in unlawful harassment against him due to his
bisexuality. See id. at 3. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that certain religious mail is not being given to
him, and he requests a Court order requiring Defendant Urch to give him his mail. See id. at 4.
Plaintiff’s objections, therefore, largely ignore most of the Magistrate Judge’s findings in the
R & R. Plaintiff does not address the Magistrate Judge’s analysis regarding the following issues:
(1) prison grievance system related claim, (2) deprivation of personal property claims, (3) violation
of PREA claim, (4) supervisory liability of Defendant Church, and (5) claims for violations of right
to vote, right to bond, and right to fair, public, and speedy trial. Accordingly, finding no clear error
the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s analysis as its own on these points.

4

Plaintiff arguably did object to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of his equal protection claim.
With regard to that claim, Plaintiff has asserted he is bisexual and was discriminated against
because of that fact. Plaintiff, however, has not provided any allegations demonstrating that he was
treated differently from other similarly situated individuals.

Plaintiff merely asserts that he

requested different housing and that his request was denied. This is insufficient to state a claim for
equal protection. See Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001) (“To succeed on an
equal protection claim, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from
others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of
intentional or purposeful discrimination.”). As a result, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that this claim should be dismissed.
Finally, Plaintiff’s objections can also be construed to take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation regarding the duplicitous claims against Defendant Urch.

At the time the

Magistrate Judge issued her R & R, Plaintiff had a separate action pending against Defendant Urch,
asserting several of the same claims as he asserts against that Defendant in this matter. Compare
ECF No. 13; ECF No. 13-1; and ECF No. 19 with Complaint, Smyth v. Urch, No. 0:13-2691-RBHPJG (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 2013).

Accordingly, she recommended dismissal of the duplicitous claims

asserted in this action in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency. The overlapping claims
identified by the Magistrate Judge are Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant Urch violated his
constitutional rights by refusing to: (1) allow delivery of all mail; (2) provide adequate food
portions; (3) provide hygiene items; and (4) provide over the counter pain medications. See ECF
No. 31 at 7.

5

Although Plaintiff’s objections do not address the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that
the duplicitous claims be dismissed, they detail several actions taken by Defendant Urch which
Plaintiff argues were improper.
withholding of his mail.

In particular, Plaintiff discusses Defendant Urch’s alleged

The separate action against Defendant Urch, however, reached the

summary judgment stage, with the Magistrate Judge recommending on October 23, 2014 that
Urch’s motion be granted and the action dismissed. See R & R, Smyth v. Urch, No. 0:13-2691RBH-PJG (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2014). Ultimately, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R & R,
granted Urch’s motion, and dismissed the matter with prejudice on November 24, 2014. See Order,
Smyth v. Urch, No. 0:13-2691-RBH-PJG (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 2014). Accordingly, to the extent
Plaintiff’s objections can be construed to assert that the duplicitous claims against Defendant Urch
should not be dismissed, the Court finds that they are without merit. The duplicitous claims
asserted in this action are barred by the doctrine of res judiciata.3
CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s Complaint, the R
& R, Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R, and applicable law. For the reasons stated above and by
the Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s R & R, as modified to reflect the Court’s analysis on res judicata.
3

“Under the doctrine of res judicata, . . . ‘[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the
parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.’”
Pueschel v. United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc.
v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981)). “For the doctrine of res judicata to be applicable, there must
be: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in both the
earlier and the later suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in the two suits.” Id. at 354–
55 (citing Nash County Bd. of Educ. v. Biltmore Co., 640 F.2d 484, 486 (4th Cir. 1981)). The claims
asserted in both suits do not have to be identical; “the doctrine of res judicata not only bars claims
that were actually litigated in a prior proceeding, but also claims that could have been litigated.” Id.
at 355–56 (citing Moitie, 452 U.S. at 398).
6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Amandy Blanton and William J. Church
are dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that the following claims are dismissed without prejudice: (1) equal protection; (2) prison grievance
system; (3) deprivation of person property (4) violation of the PREA; (5) claims against Defendant
Urch for allegedly refusing to allow delivery of all mail, provide adequate food portions, provide
hygiene items, and provide over the counter pain medications; and (6) claims for violations of
Plaintiff’s right to vote, right to bond, and right to fair, public, and speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 14, 2015

7