Garrett v. Aull et al
Filing
340
OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 311 Order and Report and Recommendation. The deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Koon are dismissed without prejudice as well as against Arrojas, Ergen, Williamson, Compton, Derr ick, and Byrne are dismissed with prejudice, as is the claim regarding the May 25, 2016 use of force against Defendants Parrish and Napier. Further, Garrett's claims for excessive force and retaliation against Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline , and Parrish for incidents on January 28, February 17, and April 20, 2016, remain for trial. Specifically, Beckett in the January 28 claim, Esterline in the February 17 incident, and Defendant Esterline, Parrish, and Aull in the April 20 incident. The 325 motion for temporary restraining order is dismissed as moot. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 3/25/2021. (mmcd)
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 1 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
C/A. No. 0:18-1418-CMC-PJG
Plaintiff
v.
Aull; Beckett, Jr.; T. Esterline; James Parrish;
Travis H. Napier; Dr. Koon; Dr. T. Ergen; Dr.
Arrojas; Dr. Compton; Pamela Derrick; Gina
Williamson; Dr. Bryne,
Opinion and Order
Defendants.
Plaintiff Robert Louis Garrett, Jr. (“Garrett”) brings this pro se action alleging violations
of his constitutional rights while incarcerated in the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(“SCDC”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C.,
the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings.
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos.
232 (Motion by Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish), 278 (Motion by Defendants
Arrojas, Ergen), 298 (Motion by Defendants Byrne, Derrick, Napier, Williamson, and Compton).
Because Garrett is proceeding pro se, the Magistrate Judge entered orders pursuant to Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motions and the
need to file adequate responses. ECF Nos. 233, 279, 299. Garrett moved for and was granted
numerous, lengthy extensions in which to respond. ECF Nos. 237, 243, 264, 265, 275, 288, 289,
301, 303, 304. He was warned a failure to respond would subject his case to dismissal for failure
to prosecute or that the motions may be decided on the record presented in support of the motions
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 2 of 9
if he failed to file a response. Nonetheless, Garrett did not file a response to any of the summary
judgment motions.
On December 17, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending the medical defendants (Arrojas, Ergen, Byrne, Compton, Derrick, and
Williamson) are entitled to summary judgment, as are Defendants Parrish and Napier regarding
the May 25, 2016 incident only. ECF No. 311. However, the Report found Defendants Aull,
Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish failed to demonstrate they are entitled to summary judgment as to
allegations of excessive force and retaliation that occurred between January and May 2016, and
recommended denying summary judgment on those claims. The Magistrate Judge advised the
parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious
consequences if they failed to do so.
Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish then filed a motion to file a dispositive
motion out of time or for an extension of time in which to file objections. ECF No. 317. The court
granted the extension to file objections, but denied permission to file a dispositive motion out of
time. ECF No. 318. Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish filed objections on January
19, 2021. ECF No. 320. On February 16, 2021, the court received two motions from Garrett: a
motion for extension of time to file objections, and a motion for temporary restraining order,
requesting permission to use the ADA Typewriter at his facility despite the lockdown. ECF Nos.
325, 326. The court directed Defendants to respond to Garrett’s motion for temporary restraining
order (ECF No. 327) and granted Garrett an extension to file objections through March 12, 2021
(plus three mailing days). ECF No. 329. As of March 25, 2021, the court has not received any
objections from Garrett.
2
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 3 of 9
1. Standard
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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed
objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
2. Background 1
Garrett alleges incidents of excessive force while he was housed at Broad River
Correctional Institution (“BRCI”) between January and May 2016. On at least three occassions,
Garrett requested to see his mental health counselor, but alleges Defendants Aull, Beckett,
Esterline, and Parrish responded by spraying him with chemical munitions and did not allow him
to decontaminate. ECF No. 183 (Am. Compl.). On one occasion in April or May 2016, Garrett
alleges Aull and Parrish removed his clothes and exposed him to a female nurse and mental health
counselor. Id. at ¶ 44. He further alleges these Defendants retaliated against him for filing
1
The facts are taken in the light favorable to the non-moving party, Garrett.
3
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 4 of 9
grievances against them. In these incidents, Garrett alleges the use of force was not necessary,
was against SCDC policies, and did not involve mental health providers as required.
As to the medical Defendants, Drs. Koon, Arrojas, and Ergen, Garrett alleges they denied
his pain medication prescribed by another physician and characterized him as “non-compliant”
with his medical regimen following the May 25 incident. He notes all the medical Defendants
violated his physician’s orders in denying him care, which caused his hand to heal improperly.
The court construed Garrett’s Amended Complaint as alleging claims for excessive force,
deliberate indifference, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, he asserts claims of
excessive force and retaliation against Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish for at least
three incidents between January and May 2016, and excessive force against Parrish and Napier
regarding a May 25, 2016 incident. 2 Against the medical Defendants, Koon, Ergen, Arrojas,
Compton, Derrick, Williamson, and Bryne, he asserts claims of deliberate indifference to medical
needs. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief.
3. Discussion
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of claims against the medical defendants and
against Parrish and Napier regarding the May 25, 2016 incident only. ECF No. 311. However,
the Report found Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish failed to move for summary
judgment as to at least three allegations of excessive force and retaliation that occurred between
January and May 2016 (other than the May 25 incident), and recommended those claims proceed.
2
Garrett alleges on May 25, 2016, Parrish sprayed him with nearly 900 grams of chemical
munitions as part of a violent cell extraction in which he was severely injured.
4
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 5 of 9
The Report recommends dismissing Defendant Koon for failure to properly serve him within the
applicable time period, under Rule 4(m).
Defendants object to the Report’s recommendation summary judgment be denied as to
Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish. ECF No. 320. Specifically, they argue the
Magistrate Judge should have dismissed such claims for failure to prosecute; that Garrett’s
Amended Complaint did not specify the dates on which such incidents occurred; and that the use
of force was justified in the three incidents identified. They also argue Plaintiff’s claims of
retaliation fail and should be dismissed. They do not object to the recommendation of summary
judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims.
Although Garrett requested an extension of time in which to file objections, and it appears
SCDC officials allowed him to have the requested typewriter in his cell for at least a period of time
(ECF No. 339 at 4), the court has received no objections from Garrett. 3
a. Excessive Force
i. May 25, 2016 Incident
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment for Defendants Parrish and
Napier as to the May 25, 2016 incident, as she reasoned “no reasonable jury could find that the
actions of Defendants Parrish and Napier violated the Eighth Amendment.” ECF No. 311 at 12.
The Report found “Garrett’s repeated noncompliance and recalcitrant behavior necessitated the
use of force,” and that the amount of chemical munitions did not support a finding of excessive
force under such circumstances. Regarding Garrett’s significant hand injury suffered in this
3
The court notes it received typewritten Notices of Appeal in other cases filed by Garrett on March
15, 2020 – the date objections were due in this case. See, e.g., Case No. 19-1953, Garrett v. Enloe,
ECF No. 110.
5
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 6 of 9
incident, the Report concluded the use of the tool that injured his hand “was an attempt to clear
the blocked food service flap, and that Garrett’s injury occurred only when Garrett grabbed ahold
of the tool in an attempt to pull it into his cell.” Id. at 15. The Report therefore concluded no
reasonable jury could find the use of chemical munitions or the push/pull tool was done wantonly
to inflict pain and not applied in a good faith effort to restore order.
Defendants do not object to the dismissal of the claim based on the May 25, 2016 incident.
As noted above, Garrett has not filed objections.
After review of the record, the law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds
no clear error. Therefore, summary judgment is granted as to this claim against Defendants Parrish
and Napier, and the claim regarding the May 25, 2016 incident is dismissed with prejudice.
Defendant Napier, named only in this claim, is dismissed.
ii. Remainder of Incidents/Retaliation
The Magistrate Judge determined Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish failed
to move for summary judgment on three alleged incidents between January and May 2016. After
the Report was issued a new counsel for Defendants made an appearance and sought to file a
dispositive motion out of time addressing these incidents; however, the court denied that motion.
These Defendants then filed objections as outlined above, and included with their Objections
Incident Reports from January 28, 2016, February 17, 2016, and April 20, 2016. These Incident
Reports show Defendant Beckett was involved in the discharge of chemical munitions in the
January 28 incident, Defendant Esterline administered munitions in the February 17 incident, and
Defendants Esterline, Parrish, and Aull were directly involved in the April 20 incident. 4
4
Other officers also involved in each incident were not named as Defendants.
6
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 7 of 9
Although Defendants advance several arguments as to why claims based on alleged
incidents on the above dates should be dismissed, Defendants did not move for summary judgment
on these claims. The court has dismissed other cases brought by Garrett for failure to prosecute
after the filing of a Motion for Summary Judgment. See Case Nos. 19-1859, Garrett v. Palmer,
ECF No. 91 (92 docket entries through dismissal of case); 19-1952, Garrett v. Stephenson, ECF
No. 87 (88 docket entries); 19-1953, Garrett v. Enloe, ECF No. 101 (104 docket entries).
However, in the instant case, Garrett has filed numerous motions and maintained active
involvement (339 docket entries as of March 22, 2021). In addition, in those cases Garrett made
no filings after the respective Reports were filed but before the cases were closed, while in this
case, Garrett has filed a motion for temporary restraining order and motion for extension of time
in which to file objections to the Report.
The court finds Garrett’s claims, though lacking specific dates, included enough
information for Defendants to identify three incidents between Garrett and these Defendants
during the January-April 2016 time period. The court therefore will not dismiss these claims under
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), as argued by Defendants.
For these reasons, Garrett’s claims of excessive force and retaliation for incidents on
January 28, February 17, and April 20, 2016, will proceed to trial.
b. Deliberate Indifference
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without prejudice of Dr. Koon, a medical
defendant, due to lack of service pursuant to Rule 4(m), as noted above. In addition, the Report
recommends dismissal of the other medical defendants – Defendants Arrojas, Ergen, Williamson,
Compton, Derrick, and Byrne – as Garrett had access to medical care and treatment, including
7
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 8 of 9
medication (although not the medication he desired) “while housed in SCDC facilities and under
the care of the named medical defendants.” ECF No. 311 at 20.
Defendants do not object to the recommendation of dismissal as to the medical defendants,
and Garrett has not filed objections, as noted above. Therefore, the court has reviewed the Report
for clear error. Finding none, the court grants the motion for summary judgment as to the claims
of deliberate indifference, and these claims are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants Koon,
Arrojas, Ergen, Williamson, Compton, Derrick, and Byrne are dismissed.
4. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Garrett has also filed a motion for temporary restraining order. ECF No. 325. Plaintiff
alleges his hand injury prevents him from handwriting documents without pain, and requests a
court order for use of the ADA typewriter at his facility. The court directed counsel for Defendants
to respond to the motion. ECF No. 327. Defendants Arrojas and Ergen filed a response stating
they do not work for SCDC, and therefore defer to the SCDC Defendants for a response. ECF No.
331. The remaining Defendants filed a response in opposition, arguing Garrett has not met the
standard for a temporary restraining order but also noting one typewriter was transferred to
Garrett’s cell, despite the quarantine lockdown at his institution. ECF Nos. 339 at 4; 339-4
(affidavit of Associate Warden of Programs Brightharp, noting the typewriter was provided to
Garrett on or about February 25, 2021, and remains in his cell as of March 19, 2021).
As Garrett has received access to a typewriter, and indeed has submitted typed filings in
several of his other cases, the court finds his motion for temporary restraining order is moot. The
motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 325) is dismissed.
8
0:18-cv-01418-CMC
Date Filed 03/25/21
Entry Number 340
Page 9 of 9
5. Conclusion
After a review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, and objections filed, the court agrees with the Report’s recommendations.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. The deliberate indifference
claims against Defendants Koon are dismissed without prejudice and as against Arrojas, Ergen,
Williamson, Compton, Derrick, and Byrne are dismissed with prejudice, as is the claim regarding
the May 25, 2016 use of force against Defendants Parrish and Napier. However, Garrett’s claims
for excessive force and retaliation against Defendants Aull, Beckett, Esterline, and Parrish for
incidents on January 28, February 17, and April 20, 2016, remain for trial; specifically, Beckett in
the January 28 claim, Esterline in the February 17 incident, and Defendants Esterline, Parrish, and
Aull in the April 20 incident. 5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Columbia, South Carolina
March 25, 2021
5
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
The motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 325) is dismissed as moot.
9
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?