Plummer v. Riley et al
ORDER accepting in part 92 Report and Recommendation; finding as moot 95 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court RECOMMITS the Report to the Magistrate Judge only as to this question for preparation of a supplemental report regarding loss of the 60 days good time credit. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/9/2017.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Warden Tim Riley, IGC Ms. Powe, DHO, )
Case No. 2:15-cv-0016-TLW
Plaintiff Andrew Plummer, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. On March 21, 2016,
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 76, to which Plaintiff filed a response
in opposition, ECF No. 88, and Defendants replied, ECF No. 89. Plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment on March 21, 2016, ECF No. 77, to which Defendants responded, ECF No.
85, and Plaintiff replied, ECF No. 91.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(the Report) filed on January 17, 2017, by the United States Magistrate Judge to whom this case
is assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), (D.S.C.). ECF
No. 92. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge addresses the cross-motions for summary judgment
and recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. Id. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report on February 2, 2017,
ECF No. 94, and Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 96. 1 The matter is
Defendants filed a motion for extension of time to file the reply to objections, ECF No. 95, and
now ripe for disposition.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting
its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report,
Plaintiff’s Objections, the record, and the relevant law. The Magistrate Judge has carefully
analyzed the issues raised in the Report and recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. After consideration of the objections, this Court
concludes the objections, ECF No. 94, are overruled with one exception. The Plaintiff objects that
“60 days good time was taken.” Id. While the Report makes reference to this issue on page three,
it does not specifically address this matter or the evidence of record related to it. Therefore, the
Court RECOMMITS the Report to the Magistrate Judge only as to this question for preparation
subsequently filed their reply, ECF No. 96. Thus, the motion, ECF No. 95, is deemed MOOT.
of a supplemental report regarding loss of the 60 days good time credit. As stated, this Court
ACCEPTS IN PART the Report, ECF No. 92, regarding all other issues analyzed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
March 9, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?