Davis v. Williams et al

Filing 32

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 Report and Recommendations. Defendants Mitchell and Pivovarnik are dismissed from this action with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 10/5/2011. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Steven D. Davis, #068043,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
Officer A. Williams; Officer Lomax; Danielle )
Mitchell, Attorney for Department of Social
)
Services; Brenda Pivovarnik,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C/A No.: 8:11-1367-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Steven D. Davis, 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 with regard to his prison legal mail.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that the court should dismiss defendants Mitchell and
Pivovarnik. The 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 advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, but no objections were filed. Thus, it appears this matter is ripe for

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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

resolution.
Plaintiff’s alleges that while he was being held at the Greenville County Detention
Center, Defendant Williams opened and read his legal mail outside his presence in violation
of institutional procedures and federal law. Plaintiff contends that defendants Mitchell and
Pivovarnik sent legal papers to the plaintiff and they should have had the papers hand
delivered and sealed. The Magistrate Judge properly opines that defendants Mitchell and
Pivovarnik are absolutely immune from plaintiff’s claims for damages and are entitled to
summary dismissal. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978) (prosecutorial immunity extends
to officials performing certain functions analogous to those of a prosecutor).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference and
defendants Mitchell and Pivovarnik are dismissed from this action with prejudice. This matter
shall remain before the Magistrate Judge pending review of the remaining defendants’ motion
for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

October 5, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

2