Goins v. Pearson et al

Filing 112

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation 107 and therefore grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in part. (Dkt. No. 78 ). Specifically, Pl aintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice, and any state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending motions are denied as moot. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 05/29/2014. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Michael D. Goins,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.
Investigator Elbert Pearson,
Sgt. C. Long, and Cpl. Council,
each in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants.

No: 4: 12-cv-3494-RMG
ORDER

------------------------------)
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the
Magistrate Judge.

(Dkt. No. 107).

As set forth below, the Court agrees with the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment
in part.

Background
Michael D. Goins ("Plaintiff') is incarcerated in Perry Correctional Institution and brings
this action, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants seized his personal property in violation of his Constitutional rights and that
Defendants were grossly negligent. (ld. at 6). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff alleges that on May 14, 2009, unknown officers at the South Carolina
Department of Corrections seized his property. (ld. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that he tried to make
contact with Defendant Pearson in order to retrieve his property, but that he never saw any of the
Defendants. (ld. at 5). Plaintiff alleges that when he arrived at Perry Correctional Institution, a

1

lieutenant told him that Defendant Long would hold a meeting and then return the property. (Id.
at 5). Plaintiff alleges that he attempted several times to have his property returned to no avail,
(id. at 6), and that his mother allegedly inquired about the property from 2009 until 2011. (Id.).

Plaintiff further alleges that in April 2010 and May 2012, Defendants told him that he would get
his property soon. (Dkt. No. 105-1 at 11).
In December 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action, (Dkt. No. 1), and Defendants moved
for Summary Judgment on September 13, 2013. (Dkt. No. 78). Plaintiff then filed a response
opposing the motion.

(Dkt. No. 105). The Magistrate Judge then issued the present R&R

recommending the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 107 at 5).
Plaintiff then filed a timely written objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Dkt. No. 110).
Legal Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modifY, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.s.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
Discussion

After review of the record, the R&R, and Plaintiffs objections, the Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge applied sound legal principles to the facts of this case and therefore agrees with
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as set forth below.

2

Plaintiffs action arises from an allegation that on May 14, 2009, while at Kirkland
Correctional Institution Reception and Evaluation, Defendants searched and seized his personal
property and have since failed to return it to him. In their affidavits, Defendants assert they
cannot locate the alleged property or even know of its existence. (Dkt. Nos. 78-2, 78-3). A
claim regarding Plaintiffs lost personal property is not cognizable under § 1983 because
Plaintiff has adequate remedies under state law, particularly under the South Carolina Tort
Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10-220. See McNeil v. Campbell, No. 4:08-cv-601­
TLW, 2008 WL 5378252, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2008) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,
533 (1984». Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiffs § 1983
claims. To the extent that Plaintiffs complaint raises state-law causes of action, the Court
declines to exercise jurisdiction over them. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).1 The Court expressly does
not rule on Defendants' statute of limitations defense.
Conclusion

As stated above, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
therefore grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in part.

(Dkt. No. 78).

Specifically, Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are dismissed with prejudice, and any
state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending
motions are denied as moot.

Plaintiff of course may file his state-law claims in state court. The Court further notes that, as long as Plaintiff is
diligent about filing his state-court complaint, the law provides that this dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will have
no effect on a statute of limitations argument. 28 U.S.c. § 1367(d) (providing thirty-day window to file in state
court).
1

3

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
May ')..1 ,2014
Charleston, South Carolina

4