Gilmore v. Myers et al, No. 5:2010cv02663 - Document 68 (D.S.C. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER: the court affirms its Opinion and Order 62 entered on February 23, 2012. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 2/24/2012. (mcot, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gilmore v. Myers et al Doc. 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION Perry Drake Gilmore, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Ronaldo D. Myers; Curtis Bufford, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 5:10-2663-CMC-KDW OPINION and ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2012, the undersigned granted summary judgment to Defendants and dismissed this matter without prejudice. ECF No. 62. On February 24, 2012, the Clerk received objections from Plaintiff, which were given to prison authorities on February 17, 2012. ECF No. 66-1 at 2. Therefore, pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), these objections were timely filed. After conducting a de novo review as to the objections made, and considering the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court affirms its earlier ruling that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based upon Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff’s objections fail to provide any affirmative proof (other than his self-serving statements which are not presented under oath) that he properly exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to respond to Defendants’ contentions that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and his response rested entirely on the premise – unsupported by appropriate evidence – that he filed grievances but 1 Dockets.Justia.com they were ignored and/or destroyed by jail officials. Plaintiff contends in his objections that he “rarely ever got any responses [ ] especially [to] those claims that [detention center] employees could be held liable in.” Obj. at 1 (ECF No. 66, filed Feb. 24, 2012). This contention is belied by the record, which contains numerous grievances and responses thereto, including grievances regarding specific individuals. See Attachment to Aff. of Kathryn Harrell, ECF No. 32-7 (filed May 4, 2011). Accordingly, the court affirms its Opinion and Order entered February 23, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina February 24, 2012 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
