Johnson v. South Carolina, The State of et al
Filing
54
OPINION AND ORDER denying 52 MOTION for a Side Bar and denying 53 MOTION for Reconsideration as time barred. Plaintiff is reminded that he may still be able to seek a remedy in state court. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 7/27/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Maurice Johnson, #2008003090,
)
) C/A No. 3:15-2708-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
The State of South Carolina; Lt. Cato;
) ORDER AND OPINION
Lt. Anthony; Corporal Butler; Judge
)
William Corbett; Officer Delong; and
)
Officer Durant,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
At the time of the underlying events, Plaintiff Robert Maurice Johnson was a pretrial detainee
being held at the Kershaw County Detention Center in Camden, South Carolina. On July 9, 2015,
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint seeking money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges that on October 22, 2014, he appeared before Kershaw County Magistrate Judge
William D. Corbett, where he became disruptive and was removed from the courtroom. Plaintiff
contends that he was assaulted by Defendant Corbett outside the courtroom in view of Defendant
Delong. Plaintiff further alleges that in February 2015, Defendants Cato, Anthony, Butler, and
Durant “stole [his] writen statements by force under Judge Corbets orders suposedly.” ECF No. 1-2.
Plaintiff no longer is in detention or custody.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation on July 28, 2016, in which she determined that Defendants
Cato, Anthony, Butler, and Durant are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002). The Magistrate Judge further
observed that Defendant State of South Carolina is immune from suit under the Eleventh
Amendment. In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court not exercise jurisdiction
over any state law claims asserted by Plaintiff with respect to Defendants Corbett and Delong.
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. The court adopted the Report and
Recommendation by order filed August 30, 2016. Summary judgment was entered on August 31,
2016.
This matter now is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for sidebar and motion for
reconsideration, which motions were filed November 4, 2016. In his motion for sidebar, Plaintiff
states that he would like to “show sombody with authority proof of tampering with evidence comited
by the US government. I was not alloued to continue my case untill I was released.” ECF No. 52.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation and states
he was unable to comply with the grievance system because the correctional officers stole his
personal documentation. Plaintiff further contends that since his release he has obtained video and
audio evidence from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to support his case.
Plaintiff contends he was released on March 18, 2016, but that his mail was not returned to the court,
which would have notified the court that Plaintiff no longer was incarcerated.
A motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of judgment. The time to file a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be extended.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). Therefore, Plaintiff was required to file his motion for reconsideration no
later than September 28, 2016. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is time barred. To the extent
Plaintiff contends his mail should have been returned to the court to show that he had been released,
2
Plaintiff was informed by order from the Magistrate Judge filed August 10, 2015, that he was
responsible for immediately advising the court of any change in address, and that his failure to do
so would not be excused by the court. ECF No. 7.
Plaintiff’s motion for sidebar (ECF No. 52) is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. is 53) denied as time barred. Plaintiff is reminded that he may still be able to seek a
remedy in state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 27, 2017
3
claims raised by Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 30, 2016
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
4
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?