Scott v. Pearson et al
ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 164 Report and Recommendation, denying the Defendants' 87 motion for summary judgment, denying the Plaintiff's 135 motion for a preliminary injunction as moot, and granting the Plaintiff's 133 motion to appoint counsel. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/14/2016. (bgoo)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Civil Action No.: 0:12-cv-1538-BHH
ORDER AND OPINION
Albert Pearson, Responsible Authority )
over South Carolina Dep’t of
Corrections Special Investigation Unit; )
Jannita Gaston, South Carolina Dept. )
Of Correction State Classification; )
William Byars, South Carolina Dept. )
Of Corrections Director; Warden )
Anthony Padula; Associate Warden )
Margaret Bell; Associate Warden )
John Brooks; Major James Dean; and )
Ms. Reames, Institution Classification )
James Darnell Scott,
On June 11, 2012, James Darnell Scott, (“Plaintiff”), filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, for consideration of pretrial matters. The Court
previously granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on February 24, 2015.
(ECF No. 121.) Plaintiff successfully appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Specifically, on August 31, 2015, the Fourth Circuit
vacated and remanded the Court’s order for further proceedings in light of the Fourth
Circuit’s recent decision in Incumaa v. Stirling, 791 F.3d 517 (4th Cir. 2015). (ECF No.
136.) Upon review of further briefing by the parties, the Magistrate Judge prepared a
thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Defendants’
motion for summary judgment be denied. (ECF No. 158.) Defendants filed timely
objections to the Report (ECF No. 160), to which Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 161). The
Magistrate Judge then issued an Amended Report on August 23, 2016. (ECF No. 164.)
Defendants filed timely objections to the Amended Report on September 9, 2016. (ECF
No. 167.) For the reasons set forth herein, the Court adopts the Amended Report.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Amended Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law,
and the Court incorporates them and summarizes below only in relevant part. Plaintiff
filed this matter on June 11, 2012, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF
No. 1.) Liberally construing the complaint,1 Plaintiff alleges violation of his due process
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment due to his classification status as a Security
Detention inmate and his inability to contest this classification. (ECF Nos. 18; 18-2.) He
alleges that, due to his classification status, the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (“SCDC”) began transferring him among facilities every thirty days. (Id.)
Plaintiff further alleges a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights because Defendants
have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs (Id.) Plaintiff seeks injunctions
against SCDC officials, demanding a change in the classification and review policies.
(Id.) He also seeks monetary damages. (Id.)
On January 10, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 87.) They further briefed this
motion on February 1, 2016 after the case was remanded from the Fourth Circuit. (ECF
The Court draws the allegations from Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on September 26,
2012. (ECF No. 18.)
No. 153.) Plaintiff first responded to the motion on January 21, 2014 (ECF No. 90), and
again responded on February 16, 2016 (ECF No. 156), following the remand of this case
from the Fourth Circuit. After consideration of these supplemental briefs, the Magistrate
Judge issued an Amended Report recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment be denied, in light of the Incumaa decision. (ECF No. 164.) The Court has
reviewed the objections to the Report, but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it
will enter judgment accordingly.2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Report
to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the
matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In
the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are
reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
As always, the Court says only what is necessary to address Defendants’ objections against the already
meaningful backdrop of a thorough Report of the Magistrate Judge, incorporated entirely by specific
reference, herein, to the degree not inconsistent. Exhaustive recitation of law and fact exists there.
In reviewing these pleadings, the Court is mindful of Plaintiff’s pro se status. When
dealing with a pro se litigant, the Court is charged with liberal construction of the
pleadings. See, e.g., De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). The
requirement of a liberal construction does not mean, however, that the Court can ignore
a plaintiff’s clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim, or that the Court
must assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See
United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012).
In her concise and thoughtful Report, the Magistrate Judge found that Defendants
failed to sufficiently distinguish this matter from Incumaa, and, therefore, summary
judgment should be denied. Defendants seemingly ignore this central holding of the
Report, objecting only that “Defendants have not been deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff’s medical needs.” (ECF No. 167 at 1.)
As an initial matter the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the instant
matter and Incumma share substantially similar facts. As the Magistrate Judge correctly
noted, both cases involve an inmate’s classification as a Security Threat Group (“STG”)
inmate in security detention housed in the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) of an
SCDC facility. In Incumma, the inmate remained in solitary confinement for twenty years,
which the Court held “amount[ed] to atypical and significant hardship in relation to the
general population and implicate[d] a liberty interest in avoiding security detention.”
Incumaa, 791 F.3d at 520. The Incumma Court further found a triable issue “as to
whether [SCDC’s] process for determining which inmates are fit for release from security
detention meets the minimum requirements of procedural due process.” Id.
Notably, Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs, in part due to his repeated transfers every thirty days to a different
institution. (ECF No. 1 at 3–6.) In their objections, Defendants do not contend that the
SCDC had a different classification review policy from that in Incumma during the time
complained of by Plaintiff. Indeed, they do not address the Incumma decision at all. The
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s “classification status may directly
relate to his claim regarding medical care,” and, therefore, summary judgment is
inappropriate on this claim. Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections.
After careful consideration of the relevant motions, responses, and objections, the
Court finds that Defendants’ objections are without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons
stated above and by the Magistrate Judge, the Court overrules Defendants’ objections,
adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 87) is DENIED. Further, given Defendants’
undisputed averment that Plaintiff is currently housed in the general population, Plaintiff’s
motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 135) is DENIED AS MOOT. Finally, in light of
the Court’s denial of summary judgment, Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (ECF No.
133) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
September 14, 2016
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?