English v. Andrews et al

Filing 138

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, accepting 125 Report and Recommendation granting 91 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 94 Motion for Settlement, denying 131 Motion to Amend/Correct and Motion to Remand, and denying 130 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 12/9/2014. (mwal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Roderick English,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Ms. Andrews, RN; Jane Wrecsis, Health
)
Manager; Mr. Parker, Warden; John B.
)
Mcree; Vera Courson, RN; William R.
)
Byars, Jr.;
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-2793-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff, Roderick English, currently incarcerated at McCormick Correctional Institution in
McCormick , South Carolina and proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Pending
before the Court is Defendants’ [Docket Entry #91] motion for summary judgment. Also pending
is: 1) Plaintiff’s [Docket Entry #94] motion for settlement; 2) Plaintiff’s [Docket Entry #130]
motion for x-ray of injury; and 3) Plaintiff’s [Docket Entry #131] motion to amend the complaint
and remand case.
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation [Docket Entry #125] of
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges filed on October 6, 2014.1 The Magistrate Judge recommended
that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and the case dismissed based on
Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Although Plaintiff requested an extension of
time to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was granted, Plaintiff has not

1

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Hodges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2).

filed any Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Standard of Review
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The right to de novo review may be waived by the failure to file timely objections. Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). 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.” Id. Moreover, in the absence of
objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). However, in the absence of
objections, the Court must “‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Discussion
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, nor did Plaintiff dispute his failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his
opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
2

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires a prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies before
bringing an action with respect to prison conditions under § 1983. The exhaustion requirement is
mandatory and courts have no discretion to waive the requirement. Johnson v. Ozmint, 567 F. Supp.
2d 806, 814 (D..S.C. 2008). “Even where exhaustion may be considered futile or inadequate, this
requirement cannot be waived.” Johnson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 814. Additionally, exhaustion is
required regardless of the relief sought. Id. As the United States Supreme Court has stated,
“[w]here Congress specifically mandates, exhaustion is required.” McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S.
140, 144 (1992).
Because the exhaustion requirement is mandatory and this court has no discretion to waive
exhaustion, Plaintiff’s failure to properly complete the grievance procedure regarding the matters
raised in his complaint is fatal to his claim. Additionally, because Plaintiff did not file Objections,
the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Camby, 718 F.2d at 199. Based on a review of the entire record, the Court is
satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accepts the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315.
Conclusion
Having reviewed the record and applicable law, the court agrees with the recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge and finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the law to the facts of
this case. Accordingly, Defendants’ [Docket Entry #91] motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. In light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, Plaintiff’s [Docket Entry #94] motion for settlement, [Docket Entry #130]
3

motion for x-ray of injury, and [Docket Entry #131] motion to amend the complaint and remand
case are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
December 9, 2014

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

4