United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Henry W. Martin, Jr, # 190394, Plaintiff,
Cpt. Myecha Miley, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. McDONALD, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 58). The plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
On December 20, 2013, the plaintiff submitted a complaint sixty-one pages in length (doc. 1). Appended to the complaint were one hundred seven pages of exhibits (docs. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4). Named as defendants were numerous officials and employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"), various state court judges, and state court officials. In a Report and Recommendation (doc. 22) filed on March 24, 2014, the undersigned recommended that all defendants except defendant Myecha Miley be summary dismissed without prejudice. The Honorable Timothy M. Cain, United States District Judge, on September 5, 2014, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and dismissed without prejudice all defendants except Miley (doc. 48). On September 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal (Fourth Circuit Docket No. 14-7454) from the order adopting the Report and Recommendation (doc. 51).
Miley filed a motion for summary judgment (doc. 58) on October 2, 2014. The undersigned on October 3, 2014, issued a Roseboro order (doc. 59) to apprise the plaintiff of summary judgment procedure. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975). The plaintiff on December 9, 2014, filed his response (doc. 70) to the motion for summary judgment. Miley filed a reply on December 19, 2014 (doc. 72).
On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the plaintiff's interlocutory appeal. See Martin v. Byars, No. 14-7454, 589 F.Appx. 217 (4th Cir. Jan. 21, 2015).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the lengthy and convoluted complaint. Many of the allegations deal with the previously dismissed co-defendants, so there is no need to recite them here. As to the lone remaining defendant Miley, a correctional officer at SCDC's Allendale facility, the plaintiff alleges: (1) she retaliated against him with bogus charges for refusing to have sex with her (complaint at 6-7); (2) she improperly charged him for refusing to allow her to search him ( id. ); (3) she hit his scrotum, which required hospitalization for hernia surgery ( id. at 23); and (4) she tried to have him killed by another inmate with whom she had a relationship ( id. at 27). As displayed by the many attachments to his complaint, the plaintiff filed a number of grievances, though the content of these appears to pertain to his frustration with SCDC policies and other employees. He also appears to have pursued civil and criminal liability against Miley through state agencies and courts. In his prayer for relief, the plaintiff seeks a court order sending the plaintiff into federal protective custody; a court order instructing a Grand Jury to investigate SCDC corruption and sexual misconduct; $37 billion for injuries and the intentional infliction of emotional distress; and attorney's fees ( id. at 60-61).
In her memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment, Miley points out that all of the incidents involving her in the complaint had to have occurred prior to November 8, 2010, when the plaintiff was transferred from Allendale to another correctional facility ( see doc. 58-2, John Pate aff. ¶ 14). As such, the plaintiff's complaint is time-barred, as it was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations. In addition, she attaches the affidavit of SCDC's Inmate Grievance Coordinator Ann Hallman, who testifies that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action (doc. 58-3, Hallman aff. ¶ 20).
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 states, as to a party who has moved for summary judgment: "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). As to the first of these determinations, a fact is deemed "material" if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the disposition of the case under the applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if the evidence offered is such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-movant. Id. at 257. In determining whether a genuine issue has been raised, the court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962).
The party seeking summary judgment shoulders the initial burden of demonstrating to the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the movant has made this threshold demonstration, the non-moving party, to survive the motion for summary judgment, may not rest on the allegations averred in his pleadings; rather, he must demonstrate that specific, material facts exist that give rise to a genuine issue. Id. at 324. Under this standard, the existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position is insufficient to withstand the summary judgment motion. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Likewise, conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion. Id. at 248. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual ...