Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mann v. Williams

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

October 17, 2014

Anthony L. Mann, Plaintiff,
v.
Captain C. Williams, Captain Rhonda Abston, Defendants.

ORDER

RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 32), recommending that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss[1] (Dkt. No. 15) be denied. No party has filed objections to the R & R. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R and DENIES Defendants' motion.

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, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made. Here, however, because no objection has been made, this Court "must only satisfy itselfthat there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings, the parties' briefing, and the R & R, and concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the relevant law to the operative facts in this matter. The Court agrees that Plaintiff s verified complaint creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he filed a Step One grievance. If Plaintiff filed a Step One grievance and never received a response, he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Williams v. Loyd, No. 2:09-2289, 2010 WL 3609790 at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 28, 2010) ("When a prisoner files a grievance and has not received a timely determination, the grievance may be considered exhausted under the PLRA."). The Court also agrees that the statue oflimitations may be subject to equitable tolling in this case and denies the motion without prejudice on this ground.

THEREFORE, the Court, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 32), as the order of this Court. Accordingly, Defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.