Ferola v. Byars et al

Filing 57

ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims for denial of access to the courts and deliberate indifference arising at the Turbevill e Correctional Institution are allowed to proceed against the TCI and South Carolina Department of Corrections Defendants. These Defendants would be William R. Byars, Jr; Jerry Adger; Mrs. Brackenberry; Ann Hallman; Gregory Knowlin; Kenneth Sharp; O fficer Fulton; and Michael Bowers. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice, and without service of process, and that all Defendants not associated with the TCI-related claims are DISMISSED as part ies to this action, without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the dismissed claims in separate lawsuits, if he so chooses, in accordance with the foregoing. Defendants Willie Eagleton; Maria Leggins; Captain Rogers; Lt. Powell; Lt. Brayboy; Lt. Wheeler; Cpl. Miller; Cpl. Conyers; Major West; Associate Warden Sellers; Associate Warden McFadden; and Ms. Graves, IGC, Evans are 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
Michael J. Ferola,
Plaintiff,
v.
William R. Byars, Jr.; Gregory
Knowlin; Kenneth Sharp; Willie
Eagleton; Maria Leggins; Jerry
Adger; Mrs. Brackenberry; Ann
Hallman; Captain Rogers; Lt.
Powell; Lt. Brayboy; Lt. Wheeler;
Cpl. Miller; Cpl. Conyers; Officer
Fulton; Michael Bowers; Major
West; Associate Warden Sellers;
Associate Warden McFadden; Ms.
Graves, IGC, Evans,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-2413-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael J. Ferola, (“Plaintiff”), a self-represented state prisoner, brought this civil
action against the above captioned Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 6, 2013.
See Compl., ECF No. 1. 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. 15. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R & R on January 6, 2014. See Pl.’s
Objections, ECF No. 30. He also timely filed supplemental objections to the R & R on January 14,

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).

2014. See Pl.’s Supplemental Objections, ECF No. 32. For the reasons stated below, the Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
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).
DISCUSSION
In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge notes that Plaintiff asserts claims against twenty-one
Defendants, arising at three separate correctional institutions over the course of a year or more. Id.
at 2. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court find that joinder of some of these claims and
Defendants was inappropriate. See id. at 5. In particular, the Magistrate Judge determined that

2

Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences, and therefore are not appropriate for maintenance in one lawsuit. Id. at 2 (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 18, 20, and 21). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court allow
Plaintiff’s claims for denial of access to courts and deliberate indifference arising at the Turbeville
Correctional Institution (“TCI”) be allowed to proceed against the TCI and South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) Defendants.2 Id. at 7. He recommends the Court dismiss the
remaining claims without prejudice and without service of process, and that all Defendants not
associated with the TCI claims be dismissed without prejudice.3 Id. at 8. Finally, he recommends
that Plaintiff be allowed to re-file the dismissed claims in separate lawsuits, if he so chooses. Id.
In response, Plaintiff filed objections to the R & R. The Court may only consider objections
to the R & R that direct it to a specific error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–47 nn.1–3 (4th Cir. 1985).
Again, “courts have . . . held de novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes
general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the
[M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation.” Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. Thus, the Court
shall conduct a de novo review of those objections it deems proper.
Plaintiff’s only substantive objection, set forth in his initial filing, asserts that joinder of all
of the asserted claims and defenses was proper because the allegations of the complaint “cover all
2

The Magistrate Judge determined that these claims applied to the following Defendants: William
R. Byars, Jr. (former SCDC director); Jerry Adger (SCDC Investigator); Mrs. Brackenberry (SCDC
Investigator); Ann Hallman (SCDC Grievance Coordinator); Gregory Knowlin (Warden of
Turbeville); Kenneth Sharp (Operations at Turbeville); and Officer Fulton and Michael Bowers
(Corrections Officers at Turbeville).
3
These Defendants would be Willie Eagleton, Maria Leggins, Captain Rogers; Lt. Powell; Lt.
Brayboy; Lt. Wheeler; Cpl. Miller; Cpl. Conyers; Major West; Associate Warden Sellers; Associate
Warden McFadden; Ms. Graves, IGC, Evans.
3

institutions under SCDC and should be permitted to proceed as ‘conditions lawsuit’ and under Rule
20(a)(2).” See ECF No. 30 at 2. Plaintiff admits that his denial of access to courts claim covers
three separate institutions over a two year period. Id. However, he then explains that this claim
relates to seven Defendants: William Byars, Jr., Willie Eagleton, Maria Leggins, Ann Hallman, Cpl.
Miller, Associate Warden McFadden, and Ms. Graves. Id. He argues that this claim deals with
pending lawsuits he was unable to serve, and these Defendants were directly responsible. Id. at 1–
2. Plaintiff then complains that he does not understand what the R & R says and that he was unable
to access any cases outside the Fourth Circuit. Id. Finally, he requests that the Court serve all of
the named Defendants and allow the action to proceed in its present form. See id.
In his supplemental filing, Plaintiff largely repeats his previous objections, arguing that he is
unable to access the cases cited in the R & R, prohibiting him from being able to dispute the
analysis in the R & R. See ECF No. 32 at 1. He again requests that the action be allowed to
proceed in its present form and all twenty-one Defendants be served. Id. Finally, he requests that
the Court review his entire Complaint in its decision. See id. at 2.
Plaintiff articulates one relevant objection, asserting that the Magistrate Judge improperly
determined that his claims were misjoined. Plaintiff, however, fails to address the Magistrate
Judge’s specific finding that many of Plaintiff’s claims are diverse and do not arise out of the same
transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences. See ECF No. 15 at 2 (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 18, 20, and 21). After a de novo review of the record and the R & R, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that joinder of all these claims and defenses in the same suit would be
improper. After a thorough review of the entirety of Plaintiff’s Complaint and his objections to the

4

R & R, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has not sufficiently explained how the different claims and
defendants are sufficiently interrelated to justify asserting them all in the same suit.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s filings fail to articulate any other relevant objections. The
rest of these purported “objections” fails to adequately direct the Court’s attention to a specific error
in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. With regard to his purported inability to
access case law, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not dispute that he was allowed access to the law
library and cases from within the Fourth Circuit. Although the Magistrate Judge did rely on some
cases from outside this Circuit in the R & R, he adequately quoted and explained the relevant
portions. Plaintiff has made no effort to explain why the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was incorrect
or to distinguish these cases in any way. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to file any additional, proper
objections apart from his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s joinder analysis. Finding no clear
error with the R & R, the Court adopts it as its own.
CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s complaint, the R
& R, Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R and supplemental objections, and applicable law. For the
reasons stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections
and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R & R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims for denial of access to the courts
and deliberate indifference arising at the Turbeville Correctional Institution are allowed to proceed
against the TCI and South Carolina Department of Corrections Defendants. These Defendants
would be William R. Byars, Jr; Jerry Adger; Mrs. Brackenberry; Ann Hallman; Gregory Knowlin;
Kenneth Sharp; Officer Fulton; and Michael Bowers.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED, without
prejudice, and without service of process, and that all Defendants not associated with the TCIrelated claims are DISMISSED as parties to this action, without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the
dismissed claims in separate lawsuits, if he so chooses, in accordance with the foregoing.
Defendants Willie Eagleton; Maria Leggins; Captain Rogers; Lt. Powell; Lt. Brayboy; Lt. Wheeler;
Cpl. Miller; Cpl. Conyers; Major West; Associate Warden Sellers; Associate Warden McFadden;
and Ms. Graves, IGC, Evans are DISMISSED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

6