McCall v. Bodiford et al

Filing 138

ORDER accepting 132 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 111 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 114 Motion for Sanctions; finding as moot 118 Motion to Compel. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 9/7/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Terry Edward McCall,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Robert Castillo Officer, individually,
)
officially sued; Matthew Rotan, sued
)
individually, officially, Charles Poston,
)
sued individually, officially; Scotty
)
Bodiford, sued individually, officially; and )
Robert White, sued individually, officially; )
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 2:15-cv-1012-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Terry Edward McCall, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF Nos. 1, 98. On
October 20, 2016, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 111. Plaintiff
responded, filing a “Memorandum in Support of Opposition Motion to Deny Summary Judgment,”
ECF No. 114, a “Request for Sanctions Against the Defendants for Extrinsic Fraud Upon the
Court,” ECF No. 117, and “Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Fourth Set of
Requests for Production of Documents AND Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants Reply to Plaintiffs
Memorandum In Opposition to Summary Judgment,” ECF NO. 118. Defendants replied in support
of their summary judgment motion. ECF Nos. 115, 119.
On June 14, 2017 United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Compel as moot. ECF No. 132. Plaintiff
1

filed Objections and Amended Objections to the Report, ECF Nos. 134, 137, and Defendants filed
a reply to Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 135. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In conducting
its review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections.... The Court is not bound by the recommendation
of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final
determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the filings
and the relevant law. While Plaintiff generally asserted facts in connection with the incident on
September 8, 2014, he does not state a violation of his constitutional rights by the named
Defendants. The record reflects that Defendants did not know that the detainee posed a specific,
serious risk of harm to the Plaintiff. In Plaintiff’s objections, he restates that he was entitled to
surveillance cameras in his cell and that Defendants knew Mitchell was a violent offender. ECF
Nos. 134, 137. However, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he does not
assert that Defendants’ actions rise above mere negligence, and, therefore, his claims are not
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986); Ruefly v.
2

Landon, 825 F.2d 792 (4th Cir. 1987); Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1987). The Court
also notes that the record reflects Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Goodman Correctional
Institution and no longer resides at the Greenville County Detention Center. This further supports
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s causes of action for declaratory and
injunctive relief should be denied.
For these reasons and the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report, ECF No. 132,
is hereby ACCEPTED and the Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF Nos. 134, 137, are OVERRULED.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 111, is hereby GRANTED and this case is
DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s discovery motions in connection with his responses in opposition, ECF
Nos. 114, 118, are hereby deemed MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
September 7, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

3