Gathers v. Clarey et al
Filing
44
OPINION AND ORDER. The court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendations of the magistrate judge (ECF Nos. 9 , 28 ). It is therefore ordered that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19 ) is GRANTED, and the action is DISMISSED as to Defendants Willer, Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 9/29/2014.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Craig Gathers,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Sgt. Clarey, Ms. Wineglass, Michael A.
)
Schwartz, Ms. Jane Doe, Officer Dryer,
)
Officer Willer,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02206-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Craig Gathers (“Plaintiff”) filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff alleges “negligent tortious behavior, deliberate indifference, failure to act in the face of
misconduct, supervisory liability, constitutional injuries inflicted by subordinates, affirmative
duty to act, breach of duty, 14[th] and 8[th] Amendment[s], emotional distress, [and] grossly
negligent” actions by Defendants Sgt. Clarey, Ms. Wineglass, Michael A. Schwartz, Ms. Jane
Doe, Officer Dryer, and Officer Willer (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) This matter is
before the court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, the matter was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial handling. On August 1,
2013, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending the
court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and dismiss the complaint as to Defendant Willer.
(ECF No. 28.) Additionally, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on
August 24, 2012, recommending the court summarily dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s case
against Defendants Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz. (“Dismissal Report”) (ECF No. 9.) This
1
review considers Plaintiff’s two filings titled “Timely File of Written Objections to Report and
Recommendation” in response to the Dismissal Report (collectively “Dismissal Objections”),
filed September 6, 2012, and January 17, 2013, (ECF Nos. 13 and 24) and Plaintiff’s Objection
to Report and Recommendation in response to the Report (“Objections”), filed August 21, 2013
(ECF No. 34).1 For the reasons set forth herein, the court ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s
Reports. The court thereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
28) and DISMISSES the action against Defendants Willer, Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff are discussed in the Reports. (See
ECF Nos. 9, 28.) The court concludes, upon its own careful review of the record, that the
magistrate judge’s factual summation is accurate and incorporates it by reference. The court will
only recite herein facts pertinent to the analysis of Plaintiff’s Objections.
At the time of the incidents alleged in this action, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee housed
at the Georgetown County Detention Center (“GCDC”). On March 29, 2010, Plaintiff was
involved in an altercation in his cell, where he was housed with three other inmates. (ECF No. 1
at 4.) Plaintiff alleges these inmates were known for being involved in gang activity and that
Defendants Dryer and Willer knew these inmates had assaulted other inmates and deliberately
1
On August 20, 2013, having received no objections from Plaintiff, the court issued an order
adopting the Report and thereby granting summary judgment to Defendants, declining
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and dismissing Defendant Officer
Willer. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff subsequently filed his Objections on August 21, 2013. On
August 27, 2013, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the court’s order contending that he had
filed his objections on time. (ECF No. 35.) Under Houston v. Lack, a prisoner’s document is
considered filed at the time the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for forwarding to the
court clerk. 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). The envelope containing Plaintiff’s Objections was
stamped as received by the prison mailroom before the August 19, 2013, deadline, and therefore
was timely filed. (See ECF No 31-1.) The court issued an order on December 18, 2013 (ECF
No. 37), stating it would consider Plaintiff’s Objections, and vacating its order granting summary
judgment for Defendants (ECF No. 30).
2
placed Plaintiff in that cell. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges he tried to get the attention of officers after the
fight, and that no officers did a routine check for two or three hours. (Id. at 5.) Defendants
Clarey and Dryer responded to the fight at the request of Officer Hiller. (ECF No. 28 at 4.)
Plaintiff was taken to the medical unit, where it was observed that the left side of his face was
red and he had a scratch on his right arm. (Id. at 4-5.) Later that day, Plaintiff was discovered to
have additional injuries and was transported to Georgetown Memorial Hospital. (ECF No. 24 at
5.) At the hospital, Plaintiff received a CT scan of his face, which detected no fractures. (Id.)
Plaintiff also received a neurological examination, a check of his vital signs, stitches on his lip,
and medication. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that his assailants were known to have assaulted others,
demonstrating this is not an isolated incident. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Further, Plaintiff contends he
has submitted “several grievances on this matter, to no avail.” (Id.) Plaintiff filed his complaint
on August 3, 2012, alleging negligence and gross negligence, failure to protect, deliberate
indifference to medical needs, and supervisory liability.2 (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief3 and $3.5 million in damages. (Id. at 10.)
On August 24, 2012, the magistrate judge issued the Dismissal Report, recommending
the court dismiss the complaint as to Defendants Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz. (ECF No. 9 at
5.) The magistrate judge found that Plaintiff had failed to allege any facts that demonstrated
these supervisory Defendants had any personal knowledge of the actions Plaintiff alleges, and
therefore Plaintiff could not show that these Defendants’ “corrective inaction amounts to
deliberate indifference or ‘tacit authorization of the offensive practices’” to establish supervisory
2
The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff’s numerous claims, quoted verbatim on page 1
of this order, fall under these four categories, and organized the discussion as such. (See ECF
No. 28 at 10-23.)
3
The magistrate judge noted that as Plaintiff is no longer housed at GCDC, claims for injunctive
relief are moot and did not address the merits of a claim for injunctive relief in the Report.
3
liability under § 1983. (Id. at 5, quoting Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 373 (4th Cir. 1984).)
Plaintiff timely filed his Objections to the Dismissal Report on September 6, 2012. (ECF No.
13.) Plaintiff filed a virtually identical set of Objections to the Dismissal Report (ECF No. 24)
with Response in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment on January 17, 2013 (ECF No.
25).
On November 20, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.
19.) Plaintiff filed a Motion in Opposition of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
January 17, 2013. (ECF No. 25.) The magistrate judge issued the Report on August 1, 2013,
recommending the court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dismiss the action as
to Defendant Willer, and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law
claims. (ECF No. 28 at 24.) As an initial matter, the magistrate judge found that Defendants
have failed to show documentation or an affidavit to support their argument that Plaintiff had not
exhausted his administrative remedies, and therefore the magistrate judge declined to
recommend dismissing the complaint on this ground. (Id. at 10.) The magistrate judge classified
Plaintiff’s claims of “failure to act in the face of misconduct,” “affirmative duty to act,” “breach
of duty,” and “14[th] and 8[th] Amendment[s],” as a claim of failure to protect. (Id. at 13.) The
magistrate judge found that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate facts showing deliberate
indifference by Defendants to a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff under the two-prong
Farmer standard.4 (Id. at 14-18.) Regarding Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiff has not shown facts to establish that he suffered
4
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). (To demonstrate an Eighth Amendment
violation, an inmate must show two elements: "First, the deprivation alleged must be,
objectively, 'sufficiently serious,'... a prison official's act or omission must result in the denial of
'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.'" Second, under the subjective prong, "a
prison official must have a 'sufficiently culpable state of mind'" (internal citations omitted).)
4
from a “serious medical condition” and that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to
that condition under the standard set out in Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir.
1998). (Id. at 19-22.) As the magistrate judge had not found Plaintiff’s claims to allege a
constitutional violation, he found that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, which
protects government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability when “their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person should have known.” (Id. at 22, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,
818 (1982).)
In addition to his findings on supervisory liability in the Dismissal Report
regarding Defendants Wineglass, Schwartz, and Doe (see ECF No. 9), the magistrate judge
found Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts showing Defendant Clarey had “actual and
constructive knowledge” of any violations by her subordinates, and therefore Defendant Clarey
was also entitled to summary judgment on this ground. (ECF No. 28 at 23-24.) Additionally,
the magistrate judge recommended the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's state law claims of negligence and gross negligence.
(Id. at 12.)
Finally, the
magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action as to Defendant Willer, as the U.S. Marshal
Service was unable to locate a person under that name employed at GCDC. (Id. at 2.) As
Defendant Willer remained an unserved defendant after 120 days or more since the issuance of
the summons, the magistrate judge found he is entitled to dismissal from the action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (4)-(5). (Id.)
Plaintiff timely filed his Objections to the Report (ECF No. 34) on August 21, 2013.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The magistrate judge’s Reports are made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge makes only a
5
recommendation to this court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Matthews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation, or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1).
Objections to a Report and Recommendation must specifically identify portions of the
Report and the basis for those objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Failure to timely file specific written
objections to a Report will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from an Order from the court
based upon the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Wright
v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.
1984).
If the plaintiff fails to properly object because the objections lack the requisite
specificity, then de novo review by the court is not required.
As Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, the court is required to liberally construe his arguments.
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). The court addresses those arguments
that, under the mandated liberal construction, it has reasonably found to state a claim. Barnett v.
Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 1999).
6
ANALYSIS
Administrative Remedies
Plaintiff reiterates his argument that he has filed several administrative requests and
grievances with the GCDC staff and received no response, states that the administrative remedies
available cannot provide Plaintiff with the money damages he seeks, and alleges the GCDC’s
grievance system is biased and unfair. (ECF No. 34 at 2-3.) However, Plaintiff does not offer
any objections to the magistrate judge’s finding that Defendants failed to show proof that
Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies. In the absence of objections to the
magistrate judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Furthermore, failure to file specific
written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the
judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas, 474 U.S. 140; Wright, 766 F.2d 841; Schronce, 727 F.2d 91. Therefore, after a
thorough and careful review of the Report and the record regarding this issue, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and adopts the magistrate judge’s
recommendation on this issue.
Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs
In the portion of his Objections regarding the deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim, Plaintiff’s Objections lack the requisite specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff reiterates the facts regarding this issue and cites to law without
7
establishing how it applies to his case. (See ECF No. 35 at 4.) In addition, Plaintiff argues that
he was involved in only one altercation on March 29, 2010, not two as Defendants seem to
indicate. (Id.) However, regardless of whether Plaintiff was involved in one altercation or two
on the day in question, he fails to present facts establishing either a serious medical need or a
deliberate indifference by Defendants. Since Plaintiff failed to properly object to the Report with
specificity, the court does not need to conduct a de novo review and instead must “only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. The court does not find clear error in this portion of the Report and
accepts the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Failure to Protect, Qualified Immunity, and Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff makes no mention in his Objections of the magistrate judge’s discussion of
Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim or of Defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity, nor does
Plaintiff address the magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief
is moot. In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an
explanation for adopting the recommendation and must only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record. See Camby, 718 F.2d at 199; Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315.
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Report and the record regarding this issue,
the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and adopts the
magistrate judge’s recommendations on these issues.
Supervisory Liability and Dismissal against Defendants Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz
Plaintiff’s Objections to the portion of the Report regarding supervisory liability and his
Dismissal Objections regarding supervisory Defendants Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz lack the
requisite specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Since Plaintiff failed to
8
properly object to the Report with specificity, the court does not need to conduct a de novo
review and instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. The court does not find clear
error in this portion of the Report and accepts the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
In his Objections, Plaintiff states that the supervisory Defendants are “clothed with the
authority of the state law, or county authority,” and argues that the issue is “whether the
defendants in this action proximately caused the injuries.” However, Plaintiff provides no
support to these assertions nor citations to law that demonstrates the magistrate judge applied the
incorrect standard. Although Plaintiff states that the purpose of § 1983 is to “deter state or
county actors from using their badge or their authority to hide from being liable for their
actions,” (ECF No. 34 at 5, citing McKnight v. Rees, 88 F.3d 417, 419 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting
Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992).) Plaintiff still fails to provide facts that show he is
entitled to relief pursuant to § 1983.
In his Dismissal Objections, Plaintiff offers multiple citations to law purporting to
support his supervisory liability claim against Defendants Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz, but
fails to explain how the cited law applies to his claims. Further, Plaintiff offers nothing beyond
vague generalizations of his claims. He can offer no specific facts to show that the magistrate
judge erred in his recommendations.
Negligence and Gross Negligence
In the portion of his Objections regarding his negligence and gross negligence claims,
Plaintiff simply reiterates his claims and asserts that as a pretrial detainee, he should have been
afforded more protection than a convicted prisoner. (ECF No. 34 at 3.) Plaintiff does not,
however, address the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the court decline to exercise
9
supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims, nor does Plaintiff offer arguments showing
that these claims would be cognizable under federal review. As such, Plaintiff failed to properly
object to the Report with specificity. Therefore, the court does not need to conduct a de novo
review and instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. The court does not find clear
error in this portion of the Report and accepts the recommendations of the magistrate judge.
Dismissal Against Defendant Willer
In response to the failure of Defendant Willer to receive service of process, Plaintiff notes
“see Mr. Jeffery E. Wheeler” and states there may have been a misspelling of his name in
previous documents. (ECF No. 34 at 2.) Plaintiff further states that Defendant Willer was an
employee of the GCDC at the time of the incident and “the supervisors are still liable for his
actions at the time.” (Id.) However, as discussed, Plaintiff has failed to allege supervisory
liability under § 1983. In addition, although Plaintiff has made no formal motion to amend his
complaint to correct a misspelling of Defendant Willer’s name and possibly provide service, to
amend his complaint would be futile because Plaintiff has failed to establish his claims. A
motion to amend should be denied only where it would be prejudicial, there has been bad faith,
or the amendment would be futile. Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir.
2008) (citing HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276-77 (4th Cir. 2001)). Inasmuch as
Plaintiff may wish to amend his complaint in an attempt to properly serve Defendant Willer, a
motion to amend would not be appropriately granted in this case.
Charging a “Strike” Against Plaintiff Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
10
Defendants request that this suit be counted as a “strike” against Plaintiff under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, which “prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis... if he has previously
had three or more actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim.”
Tolbert v. Stevenson, 635 F.3d 646, 647 (4th Cir. 2011). “The plain language of § 1915(g)
applies only to actions dismissed entirely as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim.”
Id. (emphasis in original). As the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law negligence claim and did not evaluate it on the merits, this claim was not
entirely dismissed by this court as being frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, and
therefore § 1915(g) does not apply.
CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned reasons and a thorough review of the Report and
Recommendations of the magistrate judge and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the
Report and Recommendations of the magistrate judge (ECF Nos. 9, 28). It is therefore ordered
that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED, and the action is
DISMISSED as to Defendants Willer, Wineglass, Doe, and Schwartz.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
September 29, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
11
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?