Opinion
2:24-cv-00987-JFA-MGB
05-20-2024
James Lynch, III, #244917, Plaintiff, v. Stacy Smith; Bonnie Degraffenried; and Karen Cooper, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
James Lynch, III (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a letter with this Court on February 26, 2024, stating that he had filed a “legal civil action” against Stacy Smith, Bonnie Degraffenried, and Karen Cooper (medical staff at Plaintiff's correctional institution) several months prior, but had yet to receive any sort of response from the Court. (Dkt. No. 1) He also alleged that he had sent a check for $350.00 and an accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis with respect to the same civil action.(Id.) The Clerk of Court ultimately filed the letter as the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) in the above-captioned case, Case No. 987.
Upon conferring with the Clerk of Court's office, it appears the Court never received said materials.
On May 13, 2024, the Clerk of Court received a formal Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights against Stacy Smith, Bonnie Degraffenried, and Karen Cooper executed by Plaintiff on May 1, 2024, and opened a new civil action on his behalf. (See Case No. 2:24-cv-03010-JFA-MGB.) Case No. 3010 was in substantially proper form, as the initial filings also included a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis and set of proposed service documents. (Case No. 3010, Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.) The Court therefore issued an order authorizing service of process on Defendants Smith, Degraffenried, and Cooper on May 20, 2024. (Case No. 3010, Dkt. No. 5.)
In light of these new filings, the undersigned finds that the initial letter filed in this case (Case No. 987) was merely intended to serve as an administrative communication, rather than a separate pleading, and that the instant case was likely opened in error. Because Plaintiff's constitutional claims against Defendants Smith, Degraffenried, and Cooper are now pending in Case No. 3010, there is no need to proceed with the instant action and the undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court close Case No. 987 at this time.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the United States District Judge.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n 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.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).