Jackson v. Hill-Finklea Berkley County Detention Center et al

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING 67 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 53 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by H Wayne DeWitt, Sgt Jacumin, Hill-Finklea Berkley County Detention Center, PFC Menzie, Mrs McElvogue, Mr McElvogue, Sgt Sheets ; and DISMISSES with prejudice all of Defendants' federal constitutional claims. The Court further declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In light of the foregoing, this action is hereby dismissed. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/6/2012. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Benjamin J. Jackson, III,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SheriffH. Wayne DeWitt, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:10-3128-RMG
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt.
No. 53). This pro se action was brought by Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Berkeley County Detention
Center (hereafter "BCDC"), for alleged violations of his legal rights while incarcerated at BCDC.
The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(I)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), O.S.C. Defendants moved for summary judgment
on July 1,2011, and Plaintiff was duly served with a Roseboro order. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 54).
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Okt. No. 65). The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 5, 2011, recommending to
the Court that Defendants' motion for summary judgment federal constitutional claims be
granted and the Court decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law
claims. (Okt. No. 67). Plaintiff thereafter filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. (Okt. No. 69).
-1­

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. The Court may accept, reject, or modifY, in whole or in part, the recommendation ofthe
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
Plaintiffs complaint asserts the following nineteen separate alleged constitutional
violations against defendants: (1) he was refused breakfast on one occasion; (2) BCDC does not
have a "grievance line"; (3) guards fight inmates and neglect them; (4) there are no medical
services at the jail; (5) officers pass out inmates' medication and give wrong medications; (6) he
was bitten by a spider and received no medical attention; (7) he was deprived of rights to get
legal paperwork; (8) he was told the detention center has a law library but he has not seen it; (9)
he can only get religious reading materials; (10) there is a GED program but only for female
inmates; (11) the BCDC is overcrowded; (12) he can clean his cell only once a week; (13) there
is mildew, mold, and lead paint in the shower, and the drain backs up; (14) there are cameras in
the holding cells pointing at the toilets and showers; (15) the BCDC returns photos and personal
mail to sender for no reason; (16) the BCDC rejects visitors if they are one minute late; (17) the
BCDC is charging indigent inmates for indigent packages; (18) an inmate has to be "about dead"
to go to the hospital; and (19) the BCDC feeds inmates spoiled our soured food and the detention
center feeds the inmates the same type of food every day.
The Magistrate Judge addressed each of these claims in his Report and Recommendation,
found no violation of the federal constitutional rights of Plaintiff and recommended that
-2­

Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. The Court has reviewed the record in
this matter, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and supporting memoranda, and Plaintiffs objections filed with the Court.
The Court finds that the findings and conclusions contained in Report and Recommendation are
well supported by the record and the applicable and controlling law. Therefore, the Court hereby

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, GRANTS Defendants'
motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 53) and DISMISSES with prejudice all of Defendants'
federal constitutional claims. The Court further declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In light of the foregoing, this
action is hereby dismissed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ric~~

United States District Judge

Charleston, South Carolina
2012
January

L,

-3­