Wilson v. Byras et al

Filing 75

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation 70 by reference in this Order.Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 40 is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 1/14/2013. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Irvin Jefferson Wilson,

) Civil Action No.: 4:11-02837-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v.
ORDER AND OPINION
)
William Byras, Director SCDC; Monica
)
Wallace, Classification SCDC; B. Lewis, Case
)
Worker SCDC; C. Thomspon, Grievance, Co)
Ord SCDC,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________ )
Irvin Jefferson Wilson (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner, proceeding pro se filed this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging in relevant part that he was denied credits associated with his
auto breaking conviction. Pursuant to this court’s order dated July 25, 2012, all claims against
Defendants were dismissed except for the claim for denial of credits. (ECF No. 61.) At all times
relevant to the allegations raised in the Complaint, Plaintiff was an inmate housed within a South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) facility. Plaintiff is no longer housed at an SCDC
facility. (ECF No. 45.) On June 25, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that there is no genuine
issue of material fact for trial. (ECF No. 40.) More specifically, Defendants maintain that Plaintiff’s
incarceration time was correctly computed with all credits given for previous incarceration and
classification, therefore he suffered no damages. (ECF No. 40–1 at 3.) Defendants deny liability
for any loss resulting from the execution, enforcement or implementation of any process or orders
of any court. (ECF No. 40–1 at 3.) Defendants also deny liability for failure to comply with any
-1-

laws or liability for a loss resulting from confinement or custody arguing that Defendants’ conduct
in complying with the order of a South Carolina court is not grossly negligent. (ECF No. 40-1 at
3.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas F. Rogers, III, for pretrial handling. On October
22, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) be granted and that this court decline to
continue this action as to Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). (ECF
No. 70 at 5-6.) The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standard of law on this matter
which the court incorporates herein without recitation. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to the court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the Court
retains the responsibility for making a final determination. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 269
(1976). This court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on October 29, 2012. (ECF No. 72.) First, Plaintiff
objects to the denial of his 244 days of credit for time served and reasserts the arguments made in
his Complaint as his basis for objecting to the Defendants’ denial of his constitutional rights. (ECF
No. 72 at 10.) Plaintiff also objects to portions of the affidavit of Michael J. Stobbe filed in
conjunction with Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 72 at 11-13.) Plaintiff also
objects to all allegations made by the defense attorney. (ECF No. 72 at 14.) Finally, Plaintiff objects

-2-

to the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (ECF No. 72 at 15.) As an initial matter, a party’s
general objections are not sufficient to challenge a magistrate judge’s findings. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005)(finding that a “specific written
objection” is required to invoke de novo review by the district court);Howard v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir.1991); Ford v. Reynolds, No. 3:11-67, 2011 WL
2581397, * 2 (D.S.C. 2011). Therefore, Plaintiff’s general objection is overruled. The court finds
that Plaintiff’s other objections are non-specific, not directed to any dispositive portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, and consist of a reassertion of the arguments made in his complaint and
brief in opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Even reading these objections liberally in an effort to find a specific challenge to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the court does not find that Plaintiff has stated anything that would make
this court find any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Plaintiff’s core allegation is that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to credit him with 244 days of jail time in
violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-40. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) More to the point, in his objections,
Plaintiff appears to take issue with the fact that “244 days was not added against [indictment] #
819666 reducing a two year [probation revocation] sentence.” (ECF No. 72 at 13.) However, as the
Magistrate Judge correctly noted, nothing in the record suggests that any credits were applicable to
the two year probation revocation sentence. (ECF No. 70 at 4.) To the contrary, the sentencing
sheet for indictment/case # 2007-GS-23-2673, A/W#: 1819666 reveals that Plaintiff was sentenced
to
the State Department of Corrections for a term of five years and “upon time served the balance is
suspended with probation for 18 months.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Further, the sentencing judge

-3-

directed that Irvin Wilson be given credit for time served and wrote in the credit amount to equate
to 244 days. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) The referenced credits were properly applied to the five year term.
The Magistrate Judge opined that even if, for the sake of argument, Plaintiff was due an
additional jail credit to his sentence, Plaintiff failed to show that his federal constitutional rights
were violated or that any conduct by Defendants rose above the level of negligence under the due
process clause. (ECF No. 70 at 4-5). See Golson v. Dep’t of Corrections, 914 F.2d 1491 (4th
Cir.1990) (To recover under the due process clause, a plaintiff must establish that defendants acted
with something more than mere negligence). To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated SCDC policies, such actions do not state an actionable § 1983 claim. Thus, Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. To the extent Plaintiff asserts claims under South Carolina law for
false imprisonment, abuse of process, and/or a violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-40, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that such state law claims should be dismissed.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3). The court agrees with the recommendation.
After a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, Plaintiff’s Objections and the
record in this case, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the
court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference in this Order.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED and this
action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
January 14, 2013

-4-

-5-