Opinion
Civil Action No. 9:20-2834-JFA-MHC
04-30-2021
Steven Shawn Smith, Plaintiff, v. Head Classification Shadaya Jackson, and Associate Warden Mr. Ramos, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff, pro se, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"), seeking dismissal of this case and an award of costs. ECF No. 51. Defendants timely filed a Response to Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 52.
This case was automatically referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) and (e) (D.S.C.). As Plaintiff's Motion is a dispositive motion, this Report and Recommendation is entered for review by the District Judge.
In his Motion, Plaintiff states that he has been moved to a different correctional institution, such that he has already received the relief requested in his case. Id. at 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that the case "can be closed" and requests that the South Carolina Department of Corrections pay his court costs. Id. Defendants argue Plaintiff has not met the requirements for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They do not oppose dismissing the case, indicating they consent to a voluntary dismissal of the case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 52 at 2. Defendants object to any award of costs, arguing that Plaintiff is not a prevailing party entitled to costs under Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.
Defendants also argue summary judgment is premature because discovery has not been completed and the facts and record have not been developed. ECF No. 52 at 2. A Scheduling Order was issued in this case on November 17, 2020, and the discovery deadline has passed. ECF No. 36; see also Local Rule 26.04 (D.S.C.).
Although Plaintiff has captioned his Motion as one for "summary judgment," he has not met the standard of showing that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). However, to the extent Plaintiff wants to dismiss his case voluntarily, he may do so under certain conditions. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), unless a stipulation of dismissal is signed by all parties, an action shall not be dismissed where, as here, a responsive pleading has been filed except "by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff has advised the Court that his case can be "closed." As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and pro se litigants are traditionally treated with some degree of leniency by the Federal Courts, and as Defendants have made no objection to the dismissal of this case, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P.
While a party can be awarded costs in conjunction with a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal, Plaintiff has not put forth any facts warranting an imposition of costs against any Defendant. See Lee v. Industrial Piping, Inc., C.A No. 0:09-962-MJP-PJG, 2010 WL 3749438, at *1 (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2010) (citing Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1276 (4th Cir. 1987)) (noting an award of taxable costs can be imposed in the context of a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2)). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends denying Plaintiff's request for costs.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., and that Plaintiff's request for costs be DENIED.
The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
/s/_________
Molly H. Cherry
United States Magistrate Judge April 30, 2021
Charleston, South Carolina
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
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).