James v. Scarborough et al

Filing 112

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges' Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Scarborough's motion for summary judgment 71 is denied except to the extent Scarborough is sued for monetary damages in her official capacity it is granted. It is further ORDERED that James' motion for summary judgment 96 is denied. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 12/5/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION

Anthony James, #310987, a/k/a Anthony
Glenn James, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lt. Wonda Scarborough and Anthony J.
Padula, Warden of Lee Correctional
Institution,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 1:10-2794-HMH-SVH
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Anthony James (“James”), a state prisoner
proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation to his
Eighth Amendment rights in connection with an alleged assault by Defendant Lt. Wonda
Scarborough (“Scarborough”). Both parties moved for summary judgment. Magistrate
Judge Hodges concluded that genuine disputes over material facts precluded entry of summary
judgment in favor of either party and therefore recommended denying the parties’ motions for
summary judgment. James filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

1

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270 (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 made by the
magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate
review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
James objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that genuine disputes of material fact
exist as to the nature of and justification for Scarborough’s use of force. He contends that he is
entitled to summary judgment on his claim of excessive force because Scarborough admitted in
state court that she engaged in criminal conduct by her participation in South Carolina’s pretrial
intervention program for charges of assault and battery and misconduct in office associated with
the prison disturbance. (Objections 1.) In support of his contention, James submitted a South
Carolina Department of Corrections’ (“SCDC”) internal investigative memorandum that notes
the charges against Scarborough and her successful participation in pretrial intervention. (Pl.
Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1 (SCDC Investigative Memorandum at 2).) Completion of South
Carolina’s pretrial intervention program, however, is not tantamount to an admission of guilt.
See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-22-150. Furthermore, the SCDC internal memorandum relied upon by
James contains testimony from SCDC corrections officers that directly conflicts with
Scarborough’s allegations that she perceived James as a threat and that she used the minimal
amount of force necessary to prevent any harm to herself or James. (Id. Ex. 1 (SCDC
Investigative Memorandum at 2); Def. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B (Scarborough Aff. ¶¶ 4-7).) In
resolving James’ motion for summary judgment, the portrayal of events advanced by
2

Scarborough, as the non-moving party, must be credited. Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597
F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979). Consequently, the court agrees with the magistrate judge’s
determination that James is not entitled to summary judgment on his claim for excessive force.
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Hodges’ Report and Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Scarborough’s motion for summary judgment, docket number 71, is
denied except to the extent Scarborough is sued for monetary damages in her official capacity it
is granted. It is further
ORDERED that James’ motion for summary judgment, docket number 96, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
December 5, 2011

3