Boone v. Cartledge et al

Filing 63

ORDER adopting 59 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wallace W Dixon; granting 48 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/23/2014.(ssam, )

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

Andre Boone,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden Cartledge, Associate Warden
Mauney; Mrs. Buttrey; Associate Director
Michael McCall; and Ms. Ogunsile,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 2:13-1588-JFA-WWD

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Andre Boone, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department
of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was
denied due process when he was transferred from Lee Correctional Institution to the Special
Management Unit at Perry Correctional Institution.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should grant the defendants’ motion

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 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).

1

for summary judgment2 because the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the
court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was docketed on July 9, 2014. The plaintiff has responded noting
that he “will not be appealing the judges decision.” He also states his wish “to remove the
350 dollar I was charged with on July 9, 2014. I was told that I would be only charged 350
dollars once not twice. So I am asking the courts to remove the 350 dollars fee I was charged
with on 7-9-14 for an appeal/objection that I’m not filing.”
The court has construed plaintiff’s response as a notice that he will not be objecting
to the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge,
this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
As for the additional fee for an appeal, such amount has not been charged to the
plaintiff. Only the original $350 filing fee on July 9, 2013 will be deducted from the
plaintiff’s prisoner trust account (ECF No. 8).
The Magistrate Judge properly concludes in his Report that prisoners must exhaust
their administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C.

2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of
the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.

2

§ 1997e(a), Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); and Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516
(2002).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and incorporates
the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 48) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 23, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3