8:12-cv-03549-JFA-JDA Date Filed 09/11/13 Entry Number 103 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Calvin L. Gaddy,
Mr. Robert Ward; Mrs. Ann Hallman;
Warden Larry Cartledge; Amy Machann;
and Attorney General’s Office,
C/A No.: 8:12-3549-JFA-JDA
The pro se plaintiff, Calvin L. Gaddy, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming violations of his constitutional rights by the defendants with regard to the process
and results of a prison disciplinary hearing. At the time the complaint was filed, the plaintiff
was incarcerated at the Perry Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections. He is now housed at the Lieber Correctional Institution.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and
Recommendation suggesting that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is moot.
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge’s first Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32) suggested dismissal of defendant
Donald Altman because he was a fellow prisoner at PCI. The court adopted the Report and dismissed defendant Altman.
The plaintiff then filed an interlocutory appeal of that order. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the
interlocutory appeal on August 27, 2013.
8:12-cv-03549-JFA-JDA Date Filed 09/11/13 Entry Number 103 Page 2 of 2
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the
court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was docketed on August 6, 2013. The plaintiff filed an objection
memorandum which appears to support the claims contained in his original complaint
without specifically addressing the Report and Recommendation. The court has conducted
the required de novo review of the objections and finds them to be without merit.
As the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, the Fourth Circuit has held that a prisoner’s
transfer moots requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Williams v. Griffin, 952
F.2d 820 (4th Cir. 1991). Here, when plaintiff was transferred from Perry Correctional
Institution to Lieber Correctional Institution, his claims for injunctive relief against the
defendants were rendered moot.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 21) is moot.
The Clerk shall return this file to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 11, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge