Parten v. Boland et al

Filing 52

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker re 48 Report and Recommendation.; granting 35 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 38 FIRST Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/19/2018. (hada, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Jeffrey Bryn Parten,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Lt. Mickey Boland, Captain Kenneth
)
Downing, Nurse Donna Miller,
)
Individually and in their official capacities, )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-2539-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that he fell in the shower while he was a pretrial detainee
at Greenwood County Detention Center. Plaintiff contends that his fall and resulting injuries
occurred because Defendants Boland and Downing failed to provide slip-resistant shower mats
in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff further contends that he did
not receive adequate medical care following his slip and fall, resulting from Defendants’
deliberate indifference to his medical condition in violation of his rights under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments.

Defendants Boland and Downing filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment (ECF No. 35), as did Defendant Miller (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff filed a Response in
Opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 41). Defendants then filed
Replies. (ECF No. 42 (Bowling and Downing)); (ECF No. 44 (Miller)).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C.,
this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that both of
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment be granted. (ECF No. 48 at 14). The magistrate
1

judge concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations “failed to establish a condition posing a serious risk
of substantial harm that was deliberately ignored by Defendants,” id. at 6, and that the allegations
amounted, “at the most, [to] a negligence claim,” id. at 7.

The magistrate judge further

concluded that Plaintiff’s evidence “does not support finding a claim for deliberate indifference,”
noting the substantial evidence showing that Plaintiff was treated the day he fell, and that
Defendant Miller arranged for regular follow-up care, including x-rays, an MRI, and several
outside visits with orthopedic specialists. Id. at 12.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at 15. Plaintiff filed
no objections to the Report, however, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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 v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 48), which is incorporated herein by
reference. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 35 & 38) are
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
2

Anderson, South Carolina
November 19, 2018
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3