Culp v. South Carolina Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 91

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68 ) on the issue of exhaustion is granted and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Defendant Pate's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54 ) is granted as well. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/14/2014. (mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Fredrick Y. Culp,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dr. Alewine; Dr. Amonitti; Nurse Davis;
Paul Drago; Yvonne McDonald; Michelle
Ussemy; Dr. John Pate,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:13-1342-JFA-KDW

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Fredrick Culp, is an inmate with the South Carolina Department
of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants violated his constitutional rights relating to his medical care in 2004 and 2005.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies and that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment2 should be granted. The

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff
of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the
motion for summary judgment.

1

Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was notified of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. The court has reviewed the objections and finds them repetitive of the
same conclusory allegations in plaintiff’s complaint and without specific reference to the
issues raised by the Magistrate Judge. As such, the objections are overruled.
The Magistrate Judge properly notes in his Report that prisoners must exhaust their
administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); and Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516
(2002). The Magistrate Judge also opines that the defendant has met his burden of showing
that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Anderson v. XYZ
Correctional Health Svcs., Inc., 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir. 2005); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199
(2007).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, this court finds the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles
of law. The Report is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68) on the
issue of exhaustion is granted and plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Defendant Pate’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54) is granted as
well.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 14, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3