Gilmore v. Myers et al

Filing 68

ORDER: the court affirms its Opinion and Order 62 entered on February 23, 2012. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/24/2012. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Perry Drake Gilmore,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Ronaldo D. Myers; Curtis Bufford,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A NO. 5:10-2663-CMC-KDW

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On February 23, 2012, the undersigned granted summary judgment to Defendants and
dismissed this matter without prejudice. ECF No. 62. On February 24, 2012, the Clerk received
objections from Plaintiff, which were given to prison authorities on February 17, 2012. ECF No.
66-1 at 2. Therefore, pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), these objections were
timely filed.
After conducting a de novo review as to the objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court affirms its
earlier ruling that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based upon Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s objections fail to provide any affirmative proof (other
than his self-serving statements which are not presented under oath) that he properly exhausted his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to respond to
Defendants’ contentions that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and his response
rested entirely on the premise – unsupported by appropriate evidence – that he filed grievances but
1

they were ignored and/or destroyed by jail officials. Plaintiff contends in his objections that he
“rarely ever got any responses [ ] especially [to] those claims that [detention center] employees
could be held liable in.” Obj. at 1 (ECF No. 66, filed Feb. 24, 2012). This contention is belied by
the record, which contains numerous grievances and responses thereto, including grievances
regarding specific individuals. See Attachment to Aff. of Kathryn Harrell, ECF No. 32-7 (filed May
4, 2011).
Accordingly, the court affirms its Opinion and Order entered February 23, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
February 24, 2012

2