Opinion
Case No. 2:20-cv-02904-RMG-MGB
11-12-2020
Tyrone Roberson, #191327, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Tyrone Roberson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a "Rule 59(e) Motion of Objection to Judge Milton G. Kimpson's July 8, 2020 Order of Dismissal to Alter or Amend Judgment for a New Civil Trial by Jury." Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to conduct an initial review of Mr. Roberson's allegations and to submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned finds that Mr. Roberson submitted this motion to the District Court in error and recommends that the motion be denied and the case summarily dismissed without prejudice.
Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move for a new trial and/or to alter or amend a judgment in a federal civil action only. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a), (e). Here, Plaintiff's motion challenges the final decision, not in a federal action, but in a state administrative proceeding, Docket No. 19-ALJ-04-0651-AP. Thus, although docketed as a federal action, Mr. Roberson's motion, which is clearly directed to the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (Dkt. No. 1 at 1), does not fall under the rules or jurisdiction of this federal District Court. To be sure, aside from this motion, Mr. Roberson did not file a civil complaint in the instant case, nor are there any relevant judgments against Mr. Roberson in federal court to which this motion could possibly apply.
Docket No. 19-ALJ-04-0651-AP appears to be an administrative appeal filed by Mr. Roberson challenging the South Carolina Department of Correction's denial of his Step 2 Grievance regarding inadequate access to healthcare. See Case No. 2:20-cv-02708, Dkt. No. 1-1, for a copy of the final decision in Docket No. 19-ALJ-04-0651-AP; see also Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining courts "may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record"); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) ("We note that 'the most frequent use of judicial notice is in noticing the content of court records.'").
Instead, Mr. Roberson's motion is more properly governed by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules and must be filed in a state court with jurisdiction to hear this matter. See Rule 31, Rules of Procedure for the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (stating that the final decision of an administrative law judge may be appealed as provided by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules); Rule 201, South Carolina Appellate Court Rules (governing the right to appeal); see also See Am. Reliable Insurc. Co. v. Stillwell, 336 F.3d 311, 316 (4th Cir. 2003) (explaining that that a "party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court") (internal citations omitted). The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Mr. Roberson's Rule 59(e) Motion of Objection to Judge Milton G. Kimpson's July 8, 2020 Order of Dismissal to Alter or Amend Judgment for a New Civil Trial by Jury, and DISMISS this matter without prejudice so that he may refile a similar motion with the proper state court for adjudication.
For ease of reference, the mailing address for the Clerk's Office of the South Carolina Court of Appeals is P.O. Box 11629, Columbia, South Carolina, 29211. Mr. Roberson may also contact the Clerk of Court by calling (803) 734-1890. See South Carolina Judicial Branch, https://www.sccourts.org/appeals/clerk.cfm (last visited Nov. 10, 2020). To the extent Mr. Roberson needs to send any documents to the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, the address is Edgar A. Brown Building, 1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. He may also contact the Clerk of Court by calling (803) 734-0550 or emailing jshealy@scalc.net. See South Carolina Administrative Law Court, https://www.scalc.net/ (last visited Nov. 10, 2020).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. November 12, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina
/s/_________
MARY GORDON BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).