Griffin v. Masico et al

Filing 90

ORDER adopting the 82 Report and Recommendation and granting the Defendants' 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Donald C. Coggins, Jr. on 2/14/2019. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Donald E. Griffin, Jr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Alice Masico and Aaron Joyner,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Case No. 0:17-cv-02852-DCC

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint and Supplement alleging
violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF Nos. 1, 62. In accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and
a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
On June 20, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No.
57. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition. ECF No. 60. On October 29, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the motion for summary judgment
be granted. ECF No. 82. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and Defendants filed a
Reply. ECF Nos. 84, 86.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the

Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating
that “in the absence of timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo
review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citation omitted)).
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants violated his right to free association and his right
to marry. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as to his claim that
Defendants violated his right to free association.

He contends that by denying his

fiancée’s request for visiting privileges, they have violated his constitutional rights. Briefly
summarized, he asserts that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, that Defendants did
not investigate whether his fiancée was a security threat, and that the denial did not
comport with agency policy. The Court disagrees.
It is well established that an inmate has no absolute right to prison visitation
privileges. See Kentucky Dep’t of Corrs. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (1989) (“The denial
of prison access to a particular visitor is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily
contemplated by a prison sentence and therefore is not independently protected by the
Due Process Clause.”); see also Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 131 (2003) (stating
2

“freedom of association is among the rights least compatible with incarceration” and
“some curtailment of that freedom must be expected in the prison context,” and stating
further that regulations promoting internal security are among the “most legitimate
penological goals” under Turner); Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 805–07 (4th Cir.
2013) (emphasizing security concerns as a legitimate reason to curtail visitation privileges
in prisons). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections with respect to this claim are overruled.
Plaintiff next argues that Defendants violated his right to marry. The Magistrate
Judge determined that he lacked standing to pursue this claim. In response, Plaintiff
seems to contend that because they denied his fiancée’s visitation request, it severely
curtails their ability to either obtain a marriage license or to marry. He contends that in
Richland County, South Carolina both parties must “personally appear before the County
Clerk for interview and signature to obtain a marriage license.” He asserts that he
requested Defendants’ help in getting married, and Defendants failed to respond to his
request.
As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, inmates retain a constitutional right to
marry. However, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate that he has been injured or that Defendants caused the injury. It does not
appear that either Plaintiff or his fiancée informed Defendants that their denial of her
visitation request would prevent their marriage. Plaintiff also fails to identify what action
should have been taken to allow him to marry his fiancée or how approval of her request
for visitation would allow them to marry. Accordingly, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this
claim.
3

CONCLUSION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 57] is

GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
February 14, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4