Battle v. King et al

Filing 68

OPINION AND ORDER adopting 55 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; denying 45 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 59 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 9/16/2013.(ssam, ) Modified to edit text on 9/16/2013 (ssam, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Korell Battle,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Darryl King, Jan Pittman, and SCDC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C/A NO. 2:12-2476-CMC-BHH

OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se complaint, filed in this court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 31, 2013, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and
Plaintiff’s motion to amend be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and
requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.
On August 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint. ECF No. 59. After seeking
and receiving two extensions to do so, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on September 13, 2013.
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 of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
1

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).
After conducting a de novo review as to objections made, and considering the record, the
applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections,
the court agrees with the conclusions of the Report. Accordingly, it is adopted in its entirety.
Plaintiff’s several objections to the Report fail to establish that the Report erred in its
analysis and conclusions regarding Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff argues (as he does in his complaint
and opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion) that he is not required to comply with
every order given by SCDC officers and that he “felt [he] was justified in refusing to comply with
their improper order,” Obj. at 6 (ECF No. 66); that Defendants’ order to place him in the restraint
chair was contrary to SCDC policy; that Defendant Pittman was deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs because “the medical care provided to me after I was maced was really no medical
care at all[,]” id. at 7 because she “offered me no medical assistance except mere words of advice[,]”
id at 10; that he indeed asserted claims against SCDC; and that his state law claims should not be
dismissed (as he contends his federal claims should go forward). These arguments and facts are the
same as were considered and properly rejected by the Magistrate Judge.1

1

Plaintiff indicates in his objections that King “maliciously and sadistically” “mace[d] me
on [the] ground while I was cuffed behind my back.” Obj. at 6. This contention is not submitted as
an averment and Plaintiff specifically indicated in his response to Defendants’ summary judgment
motion that “I am not challenging the use of mace. . . . In a situation of me swinging a weapon,
resisting [which Plaintiff does not deny he was doing] I would agree he had a right to mace me then.”
Br. in Opp. to Dfts’ Summ. J. Mot. at 10 (ECF No. 35).
2

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to amend (ECF Nos. 45 & 59) are denied. Defendants’
motion for summary judgment is granted and this matter is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina
September 16, 2013

3