United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Alfred W. Cash, Plaintiff,
Chuck Wright, Sheriff of Spartanburg County; Major Freeman; Captain Hayes; Deputy Ellis; and Deputy Johnson, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
W. Cash (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, brought this action against Chuck Wright,
Sheriff of Spartanburg County; Major Freeman; Captain Hayes;
Deputy Ellis; and Deputy Johnson (collectively
“Defendants”) alleging unconstitutional
conditions of confinement at the Spartanburg County Detention
Center (“SCDC”) where he was a federal pretrial
detainee. ECF Nos. 1, 25. This matter is before the court on
Defendants Freeman, Hayes, and Wright's motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 41) and Defendants Ellis and
Johnson's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
(ECF No. 67). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the
Magistrate Judge entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of
the importance of the motions and the need to file adequate
responses. ECF Nos. 43, 68. Plaintiff filed responses to the
motions. ECF Nos. 45, 74, 76. Defendants Freeman, Hayes, and
Wright filed a reply. ECF No. 48.
September 13, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending
Defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment
be granted. ECF No. 77. The Magistrate Judge advised the
parties of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they
failed to do so. On October 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report. ECF No. 80. No. Defendant filed a
reply. This matter is ripe for the court's review.
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 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objection is made,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, 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.'”) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants' motions.
ECF No. 77. The Report concludes Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants Wright, Freeman, and Hayes should be
dismissed because Plaintiff failed to show his rights were
violated, and those Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity for the same reason. Id. at 6- 9. As to
Defendants Ellis and Johnson's motion to dismiss, the
Report also recommends granting the motion because Plaintiff
fails to allege any specific misconduct by them personally.
Id. at 10.
asserts non-substantive objections to the Report, arguing
this court is “supporting the defendants' version
of events. . . without an investigation as required in order
to factually determine the issues.” ECF No. 80 at 1.
He contends because he was not granted an attorney he is
deprived of “fair and equal justice.”
Id. He argues he has requested records regarding the
Spartanburg County jail via the Freedom of Information Act,
but has not received the documents. Id. He requests
the court “dismiss the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment and allow this case to proceed to court
where he feels he will get an unbiased decision.”
Id. at 2. Plaintiff has offered no specific
objections to the findings or conclusions of the Magistrate
Judge's Report. He merely disagrees with the Report.
Although he states he has requested documents regarding the
Spartanburg County Jail, he does not inform the court what
documents were requested or how they might support his
claims. He does not dispute the Report's findings
regarding any of his specific claims of violation of his
rights regarding legal library access, food, medical care, or
mold. Similarly, he alleges no specific actions by Defendants
Ellis or Johnson. The Report's conclusions are therefore
reviewed for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts
these portions of the Report and incorporates them by
reference into this order. Summary judgment is granted to
Defendants Wright, Freeman, and Hayes, and Defendants Ellis
and Johnson's motion to dismiss is granted.
conducted a review of the Report and underlying motion and
related memoranda, and having fully considered
Plaintiff's objections, the court adopts the Report and
it is incorporated into this order. Defendants Wright,
Freeman, and Hayes' motion for summary judgment and
Defendants Ellis and Johnson's motion to dismiss (ECF
Nos. 41, 67) are granted. Defendants Wright, Freeman, and
Hayes are dismissed with prejudice, and Defendants Ellis and
Johnson are dismissed without prejudice.
 It is not within the province of the
court to conduct an investigation into Plaintiff's
claims: Plaintiff must provide evidence to ...