Little v. Young et al

Filing 93

ORDER The Court ADOPTS the 78 Report and Recommendation as the Orderof the Court and DENIES Defendants' 42 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 02/06/2024.(hcor, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
David Antonio Little, Jr.,
v.

Case No. 0:23-cv-2874-RMG

Plaintiff,
ORDER

B. Young; De’Angelo Fludd
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”), recommending the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 42). (Dkt.
No. 78). Defendants did not object to the R & R. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
adopts the R & R as the order of the Court and denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
I. Background
Defendants argue that this case should be dismissed because the claims raised by
Plaintiff—specifically, that Plaintiff was unlawfully administered psychiatric medication without
his consent—are duplicative to other cases brought by Plaintiff. The Court, however, severed the
claims in this action, leaving only the claims pertaining to Defendants Young and Fludd, who
were not involved in the administration of psychiatric medicine. (Dkt. No. 2 at 1 (severing
Plaintiff’s claims into four distinct matters and noting that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Young and Fludd are for excessive force)). The Court, in a later order, construed Plaintiff’s
claims in this severed case to be claims “pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of excessive force,
deprivation of due process, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against
Defendant B. Young, and claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs, bystander liability,
and supervisor liability against Defendant De’Angelo Fludd.” (Dkt. No. 18 at 2).

1

In the present R & R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the claims, as severed and
construed, are not duplicative. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying
Defendants’ motion. The R &R is now ripe for the Court’s review.
II. 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 and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
When a proper objection is made to a particular issue, “a district court is required to
consider all arguments directed to that issue, regardless of whether they were raised before the
magistrate.” United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th Cir. 1992). Where a party fails to
file specific objections, “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,” see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir.
1983).

2

III.Discussion
Based on a review of the record in this case and the controlling law, the Court finds that
the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the issues in Defendants’ motion to dismiss and adopts the
R & R as the order of the Court. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claims in the current case are
not duplicative. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 78) as the Order
of the Court and DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 42).

_s/Richard Mark Gergel____
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
February 6, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

3