Sweeper v. Dozier et al

Filing 61

OPINION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 57 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Sherri A. Lydon on 6/2/2022. (lbak)

1:20-cv-02545-SAL

Date Filed 06/02/22

Entry Number 61

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Andre Sweeper,

C/A No. 1:20-cv-02545-SAL
Plaintiff,

v.
OPINION AND ORDER
Vernetia Dozier, Lt. Mathis, Lt. C. Murdock,
Lt. Rhodan, Sgt. T. Tice, Sgt. Brown, C/O
Copeland, C/O T. Owens, C/O Brown, C/O
Davis, C/O Cynthia E. Green, C/O Randall,
Ms. Angie,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (the “Motion”). [ECF No.
57.] This motion asks the court to reconsider its January 21, 2022 order (the “Order”) adopting
the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (“the Report”), ECF No. 51, and granting
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 44. For the following reasons, the court
denies the Motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [ECF No. 1.] Plaintiff’s claims concern the treatment he
received as a pretrial detainee at the Orangeburg County Detention Center (“OCDC”) from July 8,
2017, to November 8, 2017. On July 14, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
[ECF No. 44.] Following briefing on the motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge
issued her Report recommending the court grant Defendants’ motion. [ECF No. 51.] Following

1

1:20-cv-02545-SAL

Date Filed 06/02/22

Entry Number 61

Page 2 of 5

a review of Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, this court overruled Plaintiff’s objections, adopted
the Report in its entirety, and granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. [ECF No. 55.]
Plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider its Order. [ECF No. 57.] Defendants filed a response
in opposition, ECF No. 58, and the matter is thus ripe for ruling by the court.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions to reconsider are governed by Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted Rule 59(e) to allow a court to alter or amend an
earlier judgment: “(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for
new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.” Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)). “Rule
59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have been raised prior
to the issuance of judgment, nor may they be used to argue a case under a novel theory that the
party had the ability to address in the first instance.” Pacific Insurance,148 F.3d at 403. Relief
under Rule 59(e) is “an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Id. (internal marks
omitted). “Mere disagreement does not support a Rule 59(e) motion.” Becker, 305 F.3d at 290
(quoting Hutchinson v. Stanton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993)).
DISCUSSION
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that the court incorrectly applied the standard governing
deliberate indifference claims—an alleged clear error of law. See [ECF No. 57 at 4.] Specifically,
Plaintiff asserts that the court failed to consider circumstantial evidence he presented regarding the
Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical condition and the sheet metal on which he injured
his hand.

2

1:20-cv-02545-SAL

Date Filed 06/02/22

Entry Number 61

Page 3 of 5

First, with respect to Plaintiff’s medical condition, Plaintiff argues that the fact that he reported
his condition and need for medication on the OCDC intake form is “strong circumstantial evidence
“of knowledge as to each of the Defendants.” [ECF No. 57 at 4.] Plaintiff, however, provides no
case law in support of such a broad-sweeping assertion. The only individual Defendants Plaintiff
alleged were involved with his intake and informed of his seizure disorder were Defendants
Mathis, Copeland, and Tice. And regarding these Defendants, the court found that, even if they
had knowledge of his serious medical condition, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim fails because he “failed
to show how any of these Defendants acted with deliberate indifference regarding his seizures.”
[ECF No. 55 at 10.] The court, therefore, finds no basis for altering its Order.
Second, regarding the night of the seizure event, the Report noted that Plaintiff “failed to
identify a specific defendant who knew, on the night in question, or had a reason to suspect,
Plaintiff was prone to seizures and deliberately chose to not render him aid.” [ECF No. 51 at 18.]
In his objections to the Report, Plaintiff argued that Defendant Mathis was on duty that night.
However, the court’s Order noted that Plaintiff failed to make such an argument in prior briefing
and that Mathis’s deposition testimony fails to reflect that he was working on the night or morning
in question. See [ECF No. 55 at 6.] Plaintiff now suggests that both Defendants Mathis and
Copeland were on duty the night of his seizure event, and their alleged failure to conduct safety
checks, in light of their knowledge of Plaintiff’s seizure condition, “at least creates a question of
fact as to whether they acted with deliberate indifference.” [ECF No. 57 at 4.]
As an initial matter, the court notes that a rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise new
arguments that could have been raised prior. See Pacific Insurance, 148 F.3d at 403. Furthermore,
Plaintiff offers no additional evidence that these officers were on duty the night in question. And
even assuming Defendants Mathis or Copeland were on duty and there was evidence that they

3

1:20-cv-02545-SAL

Date Filed 06/02/22

Entry Number 61

Page 4 of 5

failed to conduct the requisite number of safety checks, Plaintiff’s argument misses the mark. As
stated in the court’s Order: “Plaintiff’s objection fails to account for the fact that the standard
governing his Fourteenth Amendment claim is deliberate indifference to a serious medical need
and not adherence to internal policies and procedures. Alleged failures to comport with internal
policies and procedures do not themselves create a constitutional violation.” [ECF No. 55 at 5
(citing Jackson v. Sampson, 536 F. App’x 356, 357–58 (4th Cir. 2013).] Plaintiff fails to point to
an error of law in this statement or point to any evidence demonstrating that Defendant Mathis or
Copeland acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Consequently, the court
finds no basis for reconsidering its Order.
Finally, the court turns to Plaintiff’s argument regarding the piece of overhead sheet metal
located in the shower area, on which Plaintiff cut himself. Plaintiff asserts that the court
disregarded evidence that each Defendant had “circumstantial knowledge of the sheet mental given
the length of time it existed as well as the nature and size of that piece of metal.” [ECF No. 57 at
6.] Plaintiff again asks the court to broadly impute knowledge of the metal to each Defendant by
nature of their employment. But again, Plaintiff’s argument fails. Even if each Defendant saw the
sheet metal during their employment, the law requires more. Each Defendant must have known
that the metal posed a substantial risk of serious harm and then disregarded that risk. See Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). In this case, as noted in the Order, no evidence exists that
any Defendant knew of previous issues or injury caused by the metal or that it posed a substantial
risk of serious harm. Nor is there evidence that any Defendant deliberately disregarded such a
risk. See [ECF No. 55 at 13–16.] Plaintiff fails to point to any evidence demonstrating deliberate
indifference, and the Court finds no basis for reconsidering its Order.

4

1:20-cv-02545-SAL

Date Filed 06/02/22

Entry Number 61

Page 5 of 5

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff fails to show that the court’s Order contains clear error of law or manifest injustice,
or that he is otherwise entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to
reconsider, ECF No. 57, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Sherri A. Lydon
Sherri A. Lydon
United States District Judge

June 2, 2022
Florence, South Carolina

5