Clark v. Loranth et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 42 Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by V Loranth, Warden Langford, Warden Johnson, Warden Cruz. It is ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) is granted, and this case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 4/8/2014. (abuc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
William James Clark, #11798-055,

) Civil Action No. 1:13-556-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Doctor V. Loranth, Clinical Director;
)
Warden Cruz; Associate Warden Johnson; )
)
and Associate Warden Langford,
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________ )
Pro se Plaintiff William James Clark, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 392, 91 S.Ct. 1999,
29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

Plaintiff

is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in

Williamsburg, South Carolina. Plaintiff complains that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs. regarding his pre-incarceration use of steroids. He seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief.
On September 4, 2013, Defendants Doctor V. Loranth, Warden Cruz, Associate Warden
Johnson, and Associate Warden Langford (“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment.1 (ECF No. 47.) Since Plaintiff is pro se in this matter,
the Court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) on
September 4, 2013, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for
him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on

1

Plaintiff was advised that the court intended to treat the motion as one for summary judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 because Defendant presented matters outside of the pleadings related to their affirmative
defenses.

September 17, 2013. (ECF No. 46.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial handling and a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”). On March 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Hodges issued a Report
recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted because the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction as to the official capacity claims, and because Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies and failed to plead facts sufficient to state a claim against supervisory
defendants for alleged constitution injuries inflicted by their subordinates. (ECF No. 48.). The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF No. 48 at 11.)
Plaintiff filed no objections and the time for doing so expired on March 31, 2014
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 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 recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court reviews the Report and Recommendation 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.”) (citation omitted).

-2-

After reviewing the motion and response, the record, and the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and
incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48) by reference into this order. It is
therefore ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED,
and this case dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
Spartanburg, South Carolina
April 8, 2014

-3-