Simmons v. Vickers, 1:09-cv-00653

Simmons, pro se, filed two §1983 actions against the South Carolina Department of Corrections and several officers in 2009.
The actions were consolidated by the magistrate judge because they allege the same facts and seek the same relief.
The magistrate judge recommended summary judgment on the §1983 claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, while denying amendments.
After the Report, Simmons filed affidavits and letters as objections; additional motions were noted as moot pending ruling.
The district court conducted a de novo review under Wallace and accepted the magistrate judge’s Report, granting judgment in defendants’ favor and denying amendments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1983 claims are barred by summary judgment	Simmons argues remaining issues survive summary judgment.	Vickers/Najjar/others contend no genuine disputes exist and qualify for summary judgment.	Summary judgment granted on §1983 claims.
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims	Simmons seeks to preserve state-law claims by continuing litigation.	Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction after §1983 dismissal.	Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Whether motions to amend the complaints should be denied	Amendments should be allowed to address deficiencies.	Amendments should be denied as futile or improper.	Motions to amend denied.

Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137 (D.S.C. 1992) (requires de novo review of objections to magistrate judge recommendations)