Tucker v. Sptbg County Detention Facility Medical Staff

Filing 37

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS incorporating 33 Report and Recommendations, granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Judy Collins, Larry W Powers. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/15/2010. (jpet, )

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA

J a m e s Lynn Tucker,

) ) P l a in tif f , ) v. ) ) L a r ry W. Powers; and Judy Collins, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) _________________________________ )

C /A No. 0:09-1237-JFA-PJG

ORDER

T h e pro se plaintiff, James Lynn Tucker, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S e c tio n 1983. He was a pretrial detainee at the Spartanburg County Detention Facility at the tim e this action was filed. In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that the defendants were

d e li b e r a te ly indifferent to his medical needs and thus violated his rights under the C o n s titu tio n . T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a thorough Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n and opines that the defendants' motion for summary judgment2 should be g ran ted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,

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 and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.
2

1

1

a n d the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing. T h e plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on June 21, 2010, however he has not d o n e so within the time limits prescribed. As the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, with respect to medical care in a case alleging a violation of Fourteenth Amendment by a pretrial detainee, a § 1983 claim must allege acts o r omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical n e e d s . Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The Supreme Court pointed out in E ste lle that not every claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment c re a te s a violation. Furthermore, in Miltier v. Beorn, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals n o te d that the medical treatment at issue "must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate or e x c es s iv e as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness" and that " m e r e negligence or malpractice does not violate the [Constitution]." Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F .2 d 848, 851­852 (4th Cir. 1990). H e re , the defendants have presented unrefuted evidence that the plaintiff, who s u f f ere d from a preexisting perforation of his left eardrum and earaches, was seen and treated n u m e ro u s times by medical staff. The Magistrate Judge opines that no reasonable jury could f in d that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical needs a n d this court agrees. T h e court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge's finding that the facts alleged,

2

ta k e n in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show that the defendants' conduct did not v io la te plaintiff's constitutional rights, thus the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. P e a rs o n v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815­16 (2009). A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , the court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and in c o rp o ra te s the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, the defendants' motion for s u m m a ry judgment is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

J u l y 15, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

3