Makupson v. Wright et al

Filing 49

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying as moot 30 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot and untimely 46 Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/22/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jamie Anthony Makupson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Preston Miller, Lieutenant; William
Brobson, Sergeant; NFN Nichols,
Sergeant; NFN Freeman, Captain;
Brian Cunningham, Deputy; J.
Shehan; J. Hayes; J. Guinn; B.
Branson; B. Lanford; J. Gillespie;
and J.T. Sergeant, Lieutenant,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-1435-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Jamie Anthony Makupson (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented state prisoner, brought
this civil action against the above captioned Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May, 29,
2013. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The above named Defendants (“Defendants”) jointly filed a motion
for summary judgment on December 3, 2013. See ECF Nos. 30–31. Defendants filed supplemental
evidence in support of their motion on December 10, 2013. See EF No. 36. This matter is before
the Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant.1 See R & R, ECF No. 41. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge
recommends the Court dismiss this action without prejudice. See id. at 5.

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge’s review of Plaintiff's
complaint was conducted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

Plaintiff timely responded to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on December 23,
2013, arguing in a one page filing that the Court should deny the motion based on the “substantial
yet overwhelming evidence.” See Pl.’s Response, ECF No. 38 at 1. After receiving Plaintiff’s
response, the motion was ripe for review, and the Magistrate Judge issued his R & R on January 14,
2014. Plaintiff, however, mailed a letter to the Court, postmarked January 10, 2014 and received on
January 15, 2014, in which he asserted that he received a package from the Defendants’ lawyer, but
he was not able to obtain the package from the mailroom’s supervisor because it had to be screened.
See Letter, ECF No. 43. Plaintiff indicated he did not know what the package contained and was
afraid it could be detrimental to his case. See id. The Court found that he had shown good cause to
warrant an extension and gave Plaintiff until April 4, 2014 to obtain the evidence and file any
supplemental response to Defendants’ motion or objections to the R & R. See Text Order, ECF No.
44. On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document setting forth an extensive recitation of Plaintiff’s
version of the facts, and asking the Court to disregard Defendants’ claim for summary judgment and
to grant him summary judgment. See Pl.’s Supp. Response, ECF No. 46 at 5. The Court construes
this filing as both a motion for summary judgment and supplemental response in opposition to
Defendants’ motion. Defendants timely responded to this filing on March 31, 2014. See Def.’s
Response, ECF No. 47.
For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that this matter should be dismissed without
prejudice. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is denied as moot. Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment is also denied both as untimely and as moot.

2

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The district
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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
The district court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
[C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of a specific objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.
2005).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts of this case, including citations to the record, were completely and accurately set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See ECF No. 41 at 2–4. Briefly
stated, Plaintiff alleges he got into an altercation with corrections officers at the Spartanburg County
Detention Center (“SCDC”), and that the Defendant officers used excessive force and inflicted cruel
and unusual punishment. See ECF No. 1 at 3–6. Most notably, Plaintiff requests the following
relief:

3

I would like these (Deputies) to be relieved of their duty. Therefore
no other inmate would have to be subject to excessive force under
their doing[.] I would also like the Rules and Regulations of this
Facility to meet State Standards and not to be Applied at the Deputies
discretion, as in what he sees he wants, but in the needs of the State
law.
Id. at 7.
DISCUSSION
In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss this action without
prejudice. See ECF No. 41 at 5. In his analysis, the Magistrate Judge noted that the relief Plaintiff
seeks is not available via this lawsuit. As the Magistrate Judge explained, Plaintiff is no longer
incarcerated at the Spartanburg County Detention Center (“SCDC”), and thus his request for
declaratory and injunctive relief is moot. Id. at 4. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge notes that even
if this matter was not moot, the Court cannot order the relief Plaintiff seeks, which is to have the
Defendant officers terminated and/or criminally charged. Id. at 5. Therefore, he recommends the
Court dismiss the action, without prejudice. Id.
As previously noted, Plaintiff raised an issue with receiving certain evidence from
Defendants prior to the issuance of the R & R. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court allowed
Plaintiff additional time to file a supplemental response to Defendants’ motion and/or objections to
the R & R. Plaintiff timely filed a document requesting summary judgment be granted in his favor
and denial of Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the Court construes that filing as a supplemental
response in opposition to summary judgment and motion for summary judgment rather than
objections to the R & R. As a result, the Court has reviewed the entire record de novo, rather than
following the typical procedure of review for an R & R, which is to review for clear error in the
absence of objections, and review de novo where particular objections are set forth. Nevertheless,
4

after a full de novo review of the record, including Plaintiff’s supplemental filing, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that dismissal is warranted.
As the Magistrate Judge correctly explained, Plaintiff’s request for declaratory and/or
injunctive relief is now moot, as he was transferred from the Spartanburg County Detention Center
to Allendale Correctional Institution. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991)
(“The transfer, however, has rendered moot [his] claims for injunctive and declaratory relief . . . .”).
Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge properly reasoned, even if this matter was not moot, the Court
has no authority to order the Defendant officers be “relieved of their duties.” See Maxton v.
Johnson, 488 F. Supp. 1030, 1032 n.2 (D.S.C. 1980) (“Federal courts lack the authority to remove
or reassign state employees.”) (citing United States v. White Cnty. Bridge Comm’n, 275 F.2d 529,
535 (7th Cir. 1960)). Finally, the Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff cannot
have criminal charges filed against Defendants through this lawsuit, as it is settled that Plaintiff has
no constitutional right to, or judicially cognizable interest in, the criminal process or nonprosecution of another person. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also
Collins v. Palczewski, 841 F. Supp. 333, 340 (D. Nev. 1993) (“Long ago the courts of the United
States established that ‘criminal statutes cannot be enforced by civil action.’” (citation omitted)).
Therefore, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is warranted. Accordingly, in
light of the Court’s determination, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is rendered moot and
is denied. Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is also denied as untimely and as
moot.

5

CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s complaint,
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s response in opposition to summary
judgment, the R & R, Plaintiff’s supplemental response in opposition and motion for summary
judgment, Defendants’ response to the supplemental filing, and applicable law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED, without prejudice.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 30, is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment, ECF No. 46, is also DENIED as moot and untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
April 22, 2014

6