James v. Cotter et al

Filing 161

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 146 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs § 1983 claim, and the remaining claims are hereby REMANDED to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings.. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 1/26/2018.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Michael D. James, #294004

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Daniel Cotter, D. Burcinski, and S. Duffy, )
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 9:14-cv-4518-TLW

ORDER

Plaintiff Michael D. James, an inmate proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the
Greenville County Court of Common Pleas alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. ECF
Nos. 1-1, 117. Defendants removed the action to this Court on November 25, 2014. ECF No. 1.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on July 2, 2015. ECF No. 61. On December 18,
2015, the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation granting Summary
Judgement and dismissing this case without prejudice. ECF No. 99. The Plaintiff appealed, and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit remanded this matter “with instructions
to allow [Plaintiff] a reasonable time to exhaust his administrative remedies and then, if necessary,
move to amend his complaint.” ECF No. 109. Subsequently, the Court allowed Plaintiff time to
amend his complaint, which Plaintiff did on December 16, 2016. ECF Nos. 111, 116. Defendants
filed their second motion for summary judgment in this case on July 12, 2017. ECF No. 146. The
Plaintiff responded to the motion, ECF No. 155, and the Defendants replied. ECF No. 156.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the instant Report and
Recommendation (the Report) filed on September 19, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge
Bristow Marchant, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) and (e), (D.S.C.). ECF No. 158. In the Report, the Magistrate
1

Judge recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 146, be granted
with respect to Plaintiff’s claim asserted under § 1983, and that claim should be dismissed. The
Magistrate Judge also recommends remanding the remaining state claims. The deadline to file
objections was October 3, 2017. However, Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Report. This
matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to
the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note). The Court notes that Plaintiff alleges he was denied access to the
courts when his documents were lost. However, the Magistrate Judge, having reviewed the facts
in detail and after significant legal analysis, states that the allegations by Plaintiff do not present
evidence of any docketing information or any probative evidence to show that the loss of any legal
papers prejudiced Plaintiff's ability to contest his conviction in any way. Thus, although Plaintiff
makes conclusory allegations regarding the legal documents, Plaintiff has made no showing of
actual injury or alleged any specific harm. See Cochran v. Morris, 73 F. 3d 1310, 1317 (4th Cir.
1996). For these reasons, the Court agrees with the analysis by the Magistrate Judge and agrees
that summary judgment should be granted as to Plaintiff's constitutional claims.

2

In light of the standard when a party fails to respond to a Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant filings, and the
applicable law. After careful consideration, the Court accepts the detailed factual summary and
legal analysis by the Magistrate Judge and notes that Plaintiff has not filed objections. It is
therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s September 19, 2017, Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 158, is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate
Judge, Defendants’ Motion, ECF No. 146, is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, and the
remaining claims are hereby REMANDED to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas for
further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
January 26, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3