Shell v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health et al
Filing
26
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 18 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; granting 6 Motion for Summary Judgment. The action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/22/2016.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
John Shell,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Mental
)
Health, Latrice Cooper, and
)
Tina Howell,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
C/A No. 2:15-4213-MBS-MGB
ORDER AND OPINION
On or about August 20, 2015, Plaintiff John Shell filed the within action in the Court of
Common Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
September 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that he has been in the custody and control of Defendant South
Carolina Department of Mental Health (SCDMH) and a resident within the SCDMH Sexually
Violent Predator (SVP) program since August 1, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that sometime between
August 1, 2011, and August 2013, Defendants Latrice Cooper, a case manager with the SVP
program; and Tina Howell, a public safety officer with the SVP program, both engaged in
inappropriate sexual relationships with Plaintiff, causing him to relapse with respect to his treatment,
and preventing his potential release from the SVP program. Plaintiff alleges violations of due
process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Cause of Action); negligent supervision (Second Cause
of Action); and negligent training (Third Cause of Action). SCDMH removed the action on the
basis of federal question jurisdiction on October 13, 2015. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary
Gordon Baker for pretrial handling.
On October 21, 2015, Defendant Howell filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendant
Howell states that she was not employed by SCDMH after November 9, 2011. Defendant Howell
contends that, assuming for purposes of summary judgment that Plaintiff’s allegations are true,
Plaintiff’s complaint is untimely because it was not filed within three years of the latest date the
alleged misconduct could have occurred, or November 9, 2014. See S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-530(5).
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on November 9, 2015. Plaintiff asserts that the
limitations period did not commence until he discovered he had suffered harm because of the
inappropriate contact, which was at the time of his first annual evaluation on August 20, 2013. See,
e.g., Epstein v. Brown, 610 S.E.2d 816, 818 (S.C. 2005) (observing that, under the discovery rule,
“the statute of limitations begins to run from the date the injured party either knows or should know,
by the exercise of reasonable diligence, that a cause of action exists for the wrongful conduct”).
Thus, according to Plaintiff, the filing of his complaint on August 20, 2015, was within the
applicable limitations period.
Defendant Howell filed a reply on November 19, 2015. Defendant Howell argues that
Plaintiff received numerous infractions for engaging in the alleged relationship with Defendant
Howell in December 2011 and again in February 2012, after it was discovered that he had
maintained telephone contact with her. According to Defendant Howell, Plaintiff, through the
exercise of reasonable diligence, could have inquired in December 2011 or February 2012 as to the
possible consequences the alleged relationship could have on his confinement. Defendant Howell
asserts that, at the latest, Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued no later than February 2012, and the
limitations period expired approximately seven months prior to the action being commenced.
2
On July 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
determined that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Howell are barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant Howell’s motion for summary
judgment be granted. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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 v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record.
The court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates in herein by reference. For the reasons stated herein and in the
Report and Recommendation, Defendant Howell’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 6) is
granted. The action is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for additional pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 22, 2016
3
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?