Keith v. Merchant et al

Filing 123

ORDER ADOPTING 106 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denies 73 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Trovon Keith; grants 104 Motion to Dismiss filed by Trovon Keith, and 94 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Rhonda Abston, William R Byars, Jr, Tamara Conwell, Amy Enloe, Dayne Haile, Maria Leggins, Nancy C Merchant, and Captain Miller. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/6/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

)
)

Trovon Keith,
Plaintiff,

)

vs.

No. 1: 13-cv-2721-RMG

)
)
)

)
)

Nancy C. Merchant, Tamara Conwell,
Maria Leggins, Amy Enloe, Captain
Miller, William R. Byars, Jr., Dayne
Haile, and Captain Rhonda Abston,

)

)

ORDER

)
)

Defendants.

)
)
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 106), recommending that (1) Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment be denied; (2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted; and (3)
Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Conwell be granted. Plaintiff has filed
objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 122).

Le&al Standard
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.c. § 636(b)(I). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Discussion

Plaintiff asserts two basic issues in his complaint. First, he asserts that the SCDC
correspondence policy, which limits SMU inmates to two envelopes of general correspondence
per month, violates his rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.!
Plaintiff also objects to being denied materials printed on the internet and crossword puzzles as
well as responses to certain Freedom ofInformation Act requests. Defendants assert that the
SCDC policy is related to legitimate and significant penological interests, including the objective
of creating incentives for troublesome inmates to conform their disruptive behavior. Second,
Plaintiff asserts a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical condition because of the
alleged failure of Defendants to provide treatment for a skin condition and a better mattress to
alleviate Plaintiffs back pain. Defendants contest these allegations and assert that Plaintiff has
not asserted any serious medical need that is entitled to constitutional protection.
The Magistrate Judge issued the R & R on October 20,2014, recommending the granting
of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, denying of PlaintiiI's motion for summary
judgment and granting of Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendant Conwell. Plaintiff filed
objections to the R & R which essentially reargued the merits of the issues already presented to
and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has ably and
thoroughly addressed the legal claims asserted by Plaintiff and has correctly concluded that he
has asserted no valid claim under either the First or Eighth Amendments or on any other basis
and that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The Magistrate Judge

! Legal correspondence is excluded from the policy.
-2­

has also correctly concluded that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is without merit. No
party has objected to Plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Conwell.
Therefore, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court. Defendants' motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 94) is GRANTED, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 73) is DENIED, and Plaintiffs motion to dismiss Defendant Conwell (Dkt. No. 104) is

GRANTED. Based on the foregoing, this action is dismissed with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge

February V ,2015
Charleston, South Carolina

-3­