Rogers v. Stirling et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/21/2016.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Hayward L. Rogers,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bryan Stirling, Director; and South
Carolina Department of Corrections,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-04550-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred
to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. This case is now before the court on the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the court dismiss Plaintiff’s
complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff
was advised of his right to file objections to the Report, (ECF No. 9 at 7), and he filed timely
objections. (ECF No. 11).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In making that determination, the court is charged with conducting a de novo review
of those portions of the Report to which either party specifically objects. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Then, the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report or recommit the matter to
the magistrate judge. See id.
Plaintiff’s objections are mostly unspecific to the dispositive portions of the Report and
merely restate his claims. In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that the magistrate judge erred by

1

failing to make “a finding of fact and conclusion of law” with respect to his claim that he has
been denied access to the courts, which centers on the South Carolina Administrative Law
Court’s alleged refusal to hear his second appeal from the prison grievance process. (ECF No.
11 at 1–2). When a prisoner makes a claim that prison officials infringed his access to the courts,
he “cannot rely on conclusory allegations” and must “identify actual injury resulting from
official conduct.” Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1317 (4th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff has
failed to specify how either defendant’s official actions impeded him from pursuing his claims in
court. Indeed, the very fact that the Administrative Law Court allegedly declined to hear
Plaintiff’s second appeal from the prison grievance process indicates that Plaintiff was afforded
access to the court system, and at any rate, state inmates have “no [constitutional] entitlement to
grievance procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily established by a state.” Adams
v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections and finds no
reason to deviate from the Report’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, the court overrules
Plaintiff’s objections.
Based on the foregoing, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 9) and incorporates it
herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice
and without issuance of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
March 21, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
2

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3