Al-Mujahidin v. Harouff et al

Filing 78

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 61 Motion for Summary Judgment. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure of Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/20/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Muhammad Al Mujahidin, #103968,
Plaintiff,
vs.
D. Harouff; D. Bush; W. Byrd; D.
Arrowood; R. Turner; C. Jones; V.
Balogun; A. Sobowale; M. Snyder; M.
McCall, Warden, P.C.I.; Florence Mauney,
Assoc. Warden; and Rhonda Abston,
Capt. P.C.I.,
Defendants.
________________________________

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

Civil Action No.: 9:11-2964-MGL

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Muhammad Al Mujahidin (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s
allegations and have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 61). The motion is now before the Court after the
issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate
Bristow Marchant to whom it was referred in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge

recommends (1) granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment for his failure to
exhaust administrative remedies and (2) dismissing the action without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action on November 1, 2011 against the above-captioned
Defendants. The relevant facts and legal standards are set forth in detail in the Report,
1

which the Court incorporates herein by reference and summarizes in relevant part. Plaintiff
alleges inter alia that he was sprayed with chemical munitions and fired upon with what
appeared to be a 37 mm riot gun during an altercation in his cell on May 26, 2011.
Defendant contends after the altercation he was denied adequate medical care. Plaintiff
claims to have filed grievances pertaining to the May 26, 2011 altercation and alleged
denial of medical care with Defendant Miriam Snyder (“Defendant Snyder”) who was the
former Inmate Grievance Coordinator where Plaintiff was housed. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Snyder lost or failed to file his grievances related to the use of excessive force
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. On September 21, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 61), arguing in part that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.1975),
Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and of the possible
consequences if he failed to respond adequately to the motion. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff
subsequently filed a response and a supplement to his response in opposition to
Defendants' motion. (ECF Nos. 70 & 72.)
The Magistrate Judge reviewed the pro se complaint pursuant to the provisions set
forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915 and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996. On
January 8, 2013, Magistrate Judge Marchant issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
due to Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that the complaint be
dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 73.) In his Report, the Magistrate Judge finds it
necessary to address only the failure to exhaust defense. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the Court incorporates such without
2

a recitation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to the Court. It has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71, 96 S.Ct. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976).
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). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id.

The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those

portions of the report to which specific objections are made. The right to de novo review
may be waived by the failure to file timely objections. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47
(4th Cir.1982). Petitioner filed objections on January 24, 2013. (ECF No. 75.)
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment
shall be granted when a moving party has shown that “there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The Court
must determine whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter
of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d
202 (1986). When evaluating a motion under Rule 56, the Court must construe all “facts
and inferences to be drawn from the facts . . . in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party,” Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d 1085, 1087 (4th Cir.1990) (internal quotations omitted),
and summary judgment should be granted in those cases where it is perfectly clear that
there remains no genuine dispute as to any material fact and inquiry into the facts is
3

unnecessary to clarify the application of the law. McKinney v. Bd. of Trs. of Md. Cmty.
Coll., 955 F.2d 924, 928 (4th Cir.1992). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, “the
judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter
but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
DISCUSSION
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a prisoner bringing an action with
respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or any other federal law, must first
exhaust all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). Exhaustion as
provided in § 1997(e)(a) is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct.
1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). The exhaustion of administrative remedies “applies to all
inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular
episodes,” and is required even when the relief sought is not available. Booth at 741.
Because exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit, all available administrative remedies must be
exhausted prior to filing a complaint in federal court. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,
524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 741).
Defendants argue that the complaint should be dismissed for various reasons,
including failure of the plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing the
lawsuit. Defendants have the burden of showing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust such
remedies. Anderson v. XYZ Correctional Health Services, 407 F.3d 674 (4th Cir.2005).
Defendants rely on two sources to support this argument. First they point to the affidavit
of Ann Hallman, Inmate Grievance Branch Chief with SCDC, who attests that Plaintiff did
not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this claim. Second, they have
submitted copies of all the grievances filed by Plaintiff during the relevant period.
4

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s grievance history indicates that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies with respect to his claims prior to initiating this action. After
reviewing the record as well as the submissions of the parties, the Magistrate Judge agreed
with Defendants that

Plaintiff had indeed failed to exhaust his administrative and

recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. Plaintiff
objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff objects to the “Magistrate’s total acceptance of the affidavit of Ann Hallman
and reliance on this document in reaching his decision . . .” (ECF No. 75 at 3.) At the
outset, the record reflects that in recommending summary judgment the Magistrate Judge
relied upon more than the Hallman affidavit. The record reflects that the Magistrate Judge
considered the exhibits submitted by Plaintiff as well as the Hallman affidavit. After
reviewing the exhibits that Plaintiff submitted in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, the Magistrate Judge concluded that none of Plaintiff’s exhibits
showed that Plaintiff had either exhausted any of the grievances he had submitted , filed
any other grievances relating to the issues in this lawsuit, or that Defendants had refused
to process his grievances. (ECF No. 73 at 11.) The Hallman affidavit was submitted in
support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. After the Defendants submitted the
affidavit, it was incumbent upon Plaintiff to provide evidence to dispute the Hallman affidavit
with respect to Defendants’ assertions that Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative
remedies.

As the Magistrate Judge found, Plaintiff’s conclusory and unsupported

allegations that his grievances were destroyed or not processed and that he had therefore
exhausted his administrative remedies were insufficient to overcome summary judgment
5

in lieu of the documentary evidence to the contrary. Plaintiff’s objection is wholly without
merit and is overruled.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge prepared an extensive and detailed
Report and also appropriately addressed Plaintiff’s arguments. The Magistrate Judge
clearly and particularly explained why Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. The Court has accepted all of Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true.
Nevertheless, after thoroughly reviewing the Report in its entirety and evidence in this case
and after examining the applicable case law, the Court finds no error in the Report and
adopts it and incorporates it herein by reference. As such, Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED. (ECF No. 61.) This action is DISMISSED without
prejudice, for failure of Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
August 20, 2013.

6