United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
OPINION & ORDER
M. Herlong, Jr., Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Frank Stephon
Johnson (“Johnson”), a state pretrial detainee,
proceeding pro se, alleges violations of 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Johnson filed two motions for summary judgment.
(Pl.'s First Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 39; Pl.'s Sec.
Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 73.) Defendants Correct Care Solutions
Corp., Mrs. M. Gaskins, Nurse McLean, Nurse Melissa, Dr.
Randolph, and RN Shannon (collectively
“Defendants”) also filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 94.) In her
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Gossett
recommends dismissing Johnson's claims without prejudice
for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (R&R
6, ECF No. 107.)
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Objs.,
generally, ECF No. 111.) Objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of a party's right to
further judicial review, including appellate review, if the
recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4
(4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
review, the court finds that many of Johnson's objections
are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of
the Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims.
However, the court was able to glean one specific objection.
Johnson objects to the magistrate judge's finding that
Johnson was not prevented from appealing any of his
grievances. (Objs., 3-4, ECF No. 111.) This objection is
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), a
prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies prior
to commencing a federal action challenging the conditions of
his confinement. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). It appears that
Johnson filed and received responses to twenty-six grievances
related to his medical care at Alvin S. Glenn Detention
Center (“ASGDC”). (R&R 5, ECF No. 107.)
Johnson did not appeal any of these grievances, as required
by ASGDC's grievance procedure. Johnson submits that the
instructions for filing an appeal were unavailable to him
because his grievances involved medical concerns, rather than
concerns regarding prison conditions. (Objs. 4, ECF No. 111.)
However, the following is printed at the bottom of every
Inmate Grievance Form: “If not satisfied with the
Grievance Officer's response, you may appeal to the
Director or designee once by completing the reverse
side of this form within 3 business days. The
Director or designee decision is FINAL.”
(Pl.'s First Mot. Summ. J. Attach. 1, (Supp. Docs. 1, 5,
9, 12, 15, 18, 21-23, 25, 27-28, 31, 35-39, 41, 44-46), ECF
No. 39-1.) Johnson attached these forms to his first motion
for summary judgment. Thus, Johnson plainly had access to
these instructions, and his assertion that these instructions
were unavailable to him is without merit.
after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's Report
and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate
Judge Gossett's Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein.
that Johnson's motions for summary judgment, docket
numbers 39 and 73, are denied. It is further
that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, docket
number 94, is granted. It is further
that Johnson's claims are dismissed without prejudice.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made ...