United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge.
Andrew Plummer, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1.
On March 21, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 76, to which Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition, ECF No. 88, and Defendants replied, ECF No. 89.
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on March 21,
2016, ECF No. 77, to which Defendants responded, ECF No. 85,
and Plaintiff replied, ECF No. 91. On January 17, 2017 United
States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending denying Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment and granting Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. ECF No. 92. Plaintiff filed Objections to
the First Report on February 2, 2017, ECF No. 94, and
Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff's objections, ECF
No. 96. This Court accepted the First Report in part and
recommitted the issue of loss of good time credit. ECF No.
98. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration to Vacate
the Standing Order, ECF No. 105, and Defendants filed a
response in opposition, ECF No. 108. Both parties also filed
supplemental briefs on the issue of good time credit. ECF
Nos. 107, 109.
the Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the
Court's Order filed on March 10, 2017, ECF No. 98, the
Plaintiff fails to show any intervening change in controlling
law, account for new evidence, or show clear error of law or
manifest injustice. Although Plaintiff alleges that his
§ 1983 claims should have survived summary judgment, his
argument is based on broad assertions and he does not present
sufficient evidence of manifest injustice, extraordinary
circumstances, or new evidence. After careful review of the
applicable filings, the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration or to vacate the March 10, 2017 Order, ECF
No. 105, is DENIED.
the issue of good time credits, the Court has carefully
reviewed the Second Report, filed on May 11, 2017, by the
Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e),
(D.S.C.). ECF No. 110. In the Second Report, the Magistrate
Judge addresses the issue of the loss of 60 days good time
credit and recommends denying Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granting Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. Id. Plaintiff filed objections to
the Second Report on May 30, 2017. ECF No. 112. This matter
is now ripe for disposition.
Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of
any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report to which a
specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in
that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting its review,
the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the
Court, to which any party may file written objections.... The
Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate
judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection
is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under
a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those
portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends
on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case
the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify
any of the magistrate judge's findings or
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia,
791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted).
light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the
Court has reviewed, de novo, the filings and the
relevant law. While Plaintiff generally discussed the factors
to assert constitutional violations, his asserted basis for
relief does not state a violation of his constitutional
rights. In Plaintiff's objections, he restates summarily
that his good time credits have not been restored. However,
Plaintiff does not include any additional evidence to support
his contention. The Court also notes that the record reflects
the sanctions relating to his disciplinary hearing have been
overturned through the prison's internal grievance
process. ECF Nos. 76-2 at 7-8 (Disc. Hearing Case #47
conviction of 832 (STG) has been overturned. 60 days LoGT to
be reinstated.”); 76-2 at 24; 76-3 at 1; 76-4; 107-1 at
5; 107-1 at 6 (“TOT GT LOST . . .: 00000”;
“GT RESTORED . . .: 00000”). Additionally,
Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence to dispute the
Defendants' position, which is supported by affidavits,
prison records, and public records, that 60 days of good time
credits have not been deducted from Plaintiff for the January
23, 2013 incident. This further supports the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's cause of action
is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
these reasons and the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge,
the Second Report, ECF No. 110, is hereby ACCEPTED and the
Plaintiff's Objections, ECF No. 112, are OVERRULED.
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 77, is
DENIED, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No.
76, is hereby GRANTED and this case is dismissed.
 The Court notes that the evidence
Plaintiff offered as an attachment to the objections, ECF No.
112, has already been presented to the Court and ...