York v. Starks et al
Filing
117
ORDER adopting the 91 Report and Recommendation, granting the 68 Motion for Summary Judgment, and finding as moot the 67 Motion to Compel for Sanctions. Signed by Honorable Donald C. Coggins, Jr. on 8/21/2018. (bgoo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Ofc. T. Starks, Ofc. Lovine, Major Jackson,
)
Juan Estrada,
)
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________ )
Hebert Demond York,
C/A No. 1:16-cv-03972-DCC
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Compel for Sanctions and
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 67, 68. 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 Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”). On December 15, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending that both Motions be granted.1 ECF No. 91. Plaintiff failed to file
objections to the Report; the Court reviewed the Report for clear error and adopted the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 97. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Reopen case which this Court granted and allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to file
objections to the Report. ECF Nos. 102, 104. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and
Defendants filed a Reply. ECF Nos. 113, 114.
1
The Magistrate Judge previously issued a Report on October 19, 2017,
recommending dismissal of this action. ECF NO. No. 74. The matter was recommitted to
the Magistrate Judge by the Honorable Richard M. Gergel, United States District Judge for
the District of South Carolina, for further evaluation based on the evidence presented in
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report.
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 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)).
The Magistrate Judge provides a thorough recitation of the facts of this case and the
applicable law in the Report which the Court incorporates by reference. In her discussion
of the Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, the Magistrate
Judge recommends granting the Motion for Summary Judgment because Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to all of his claims. Plaintiff objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion and argues that he properly filed his Step 1 grievances and
that Defendants have tampered with his mail.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner bringing an action with respect
to prison conditions under § 1983, or any other federal law, must first exhaust all available
administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). Exhaustion as provided in § 1997(e)(a)
is mandatory.
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).
The exhaustion of
administrative remedies “applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve
general circumstances or particular episodes,” and is required even when the relief sought
is not available. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. Because exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit, all
available administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a complaint in federal
court. Booth, 532 U.S. at 741.
“Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other
critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without
imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81 (2006). “An inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative
defense to be pleaded and proven by the defendant.” Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health
Servs., 407 F.3d 674, 683 (4th Cir. 2005).
Under SCDC Grievance Policy GA 10.12, in most cases, an inmate must attempt
to informally resolve a grievance by submitting a Request to Staff Member Form to the
appropriate staff member within eight days of the incident. ECF No. 68-3. If this does not
resolve the issue, an inmate may file a Step 1 grievance. Id. If dissatisfied with the
response to the Step 1 grievance, the inmate may appeal by filing a Step 2 grievance. Id.
Here, Plaintiff contends that he filed both an informal and formal grievance with
SCDC. He seems to indicate that his Step 1 grievances should not have been returned for
failing to attach Request to Staff Member Forms. However, Plaintiff does not contend that
he attached the Request to Staff Member Form or that he refiled his Step 1 grievances with
the proper documentation. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to allege, much less provide any
evidence in support, that he properly filed a Step 2 grievance with respect to any of his
claims. To the extent that Plaintiff labeled some of his grievances as appeals, it does not
appear that he consistently maintained the same claim throughout or properly completed
the grievance procedure. See, e.g., ECF No. 76-1 at 7, 8, 11. Upon review of the record,
including the grievances submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies and that summary judgment is appropriate.2
Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s discussion of Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Motion
for Summary Judgment [68].
The Court finds as MOOT the Motion to Compel for
Sanctions [67].3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 21, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
To the extent Plaintiff argues that Defendants tampered with his mail, Plaintiff has
failed to identify what documents are missing that would support his claims. Plaintiff also
fails to provide any support for this assertion beyond his own conclusory allegations. See
Ross v. Commc'ns Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir.1985), overruled on other
grounds, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (holding that conclusory allegations, without more, are
insufficient to preclude granting the summary judgment motion).
3
Accordingly, the Court declines to address Plaintiff’s arguments that he complied
with all relevant Court orders and participated in discovery.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?