Harrison v. Hudson et al

Filing 41

ORDER adopting 38 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wallace W Dixon; denying as moot 29 Motion for Copies; denying as moot 30 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 32 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/19/2014.(ssam, )

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
JIMMY HARRISON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRIS HUDSON and JOSEPH TYSON,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-0819-MGL-WWD
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND DENYING ALL OTHER OUTSTANDING MOTIONS AS MOOT
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and all other
outstanding motions be denied as moot. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
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 to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 16, 2014, but Plaintiff failed to file any
objections. “[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, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to
object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at the Laurens County Detention Center (LCDC) at all
relevant times. Defendant Hudson is the Administrator of the LCDC and Defendant Tyson is
employed by LCDC. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff’s allegations can be grouped into two broad categories: his medical claim and other
conditions of confinement claims. As to his medical claim, Plaintiff avers that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical claims. As the Magistrate Judge observed, however,
“Plaintiff failed to forecast evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that he was
subjected to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs as required by Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) and its progeny.” Therefore, the Court will grant
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.
Regarding his other conditions of confinement claims, Plaintiff makes only conclusory
complaints that the area in which he was housed was too noisy, that the other inmates were not
properly supervised, and that he did not have any privacy when he spoke with the nurse. But, such
allegations, without more, are insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. As the Magistrate
Judge observed, “[t]o state a claim that conditions of confinement violate constitutional
requirements, ‘a plaintiff must show ‘both (1) a serious deprivation of a basic human need; and (2)
deliberate indifference to prison conditions on the part of prison officials.’” Report 7 (quoting
Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir.1993). Plaintiff’s failure to make such a showing

2

is fatal to his conditions of confinement claims. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment on these claims as well.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of
this Court that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and all other outstanding
motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 19th day of November, 2014, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3