Johnson v. Cruz

Filing 19

ORDER re 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 8 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by M Cruz. Both parties are requested to address this issue in supplemental briefing. Because this matt er appears on this court's list of motions that have been pending almost six months, any briefs provided by either party must be received by September 17, 2014 to be considered. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/2/2014. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Harvey R. Johnson,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Warden, FCI Williamsburg,
Defendant.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A: 1:13-3347-JFA-SVH

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge.1 In the Report, the following language appears on page 8:
Petitioner similarly alleges that he requested and was denied
access to photographs of the marijuana, chain of custody forms,
and staff memoranda on which the DHO based her decision
[Entry #1-1 at 6–9]. The DHO noted in her decision that such
items are not produced to inmates for reasons of institutional
security and safety. [Entry#8-6, Section V].
Language identical to the above quoted language appears in the respondent’s
memorandum filed before the Magistrate Judge. In reviewing Section 5 of the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer’s report, this court cannot locate the language to which both defense counsel
and the Magistrate Judge refer. In fact, Section V reveals that plaintiff was provided with
1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

photographs of the alleged contraband and a chain of custody of the urinalysis. Both parties
are requested to address this issue in supplemental briefing. Because this matter appears on
this court’s list of motions that have been pending almost six months, any briefs provided by
either party must be received by September 17, 2014 to be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 2, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2