Holt v. South Carolina, The State of et al

Filing 114

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, dismissing defendants South Carolina Department of Social Services and South Carolina Ombudsman's Office, for 26 Report and Recommendation, South Carolina Department of Social Services and South Carolina Ombudsman's Office terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on May 21, 2014. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Robert Holt, individually, and
the Estate of Doris C. Holt,
by and through Robert B. Holt,
sole beneficiary,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
South Carolina Department of Social
Services; South Carolina Ombudsman’s Office;
Susan Stroman; Princess Hodges;
Susan Tillman; Pamela Dantzler; Kathy Beers;
Jennifer Brewton; Brenda Hughes;
UniHealth Orangeburg , SC; UniHealth
Post Acute Care of Columbia;
Latoya Buggs-Williams;
Sgt. Darin L. Dougherty; Sgt. George A. Drafts;
April Merrill; Columbia Police Department;
Lt. Governor Andre Bauer; Lt. Governor
Ken Ard; Jayson F. Bring; Beth Schuler;
Crystal Pavlick; Palmetto Senior Care;
Palmetto Health; UHS-Pruitt Corporation; and
Lt. Col. Carl Burke,

Defendants.

C/A No.: 3:12-cv-03539-TLW

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)

ORDER
Plaintiffs, Robert B. Holt, also known as James Spencer, and the Estate of Doris Holt, by
and through Robert B. Holt (“PlaintiffS”), proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil action on
or about December 14, 2012, alleging various constitutional violations and personal injuries
arising from the allegedly involuntary confinement of the late Doris Holt in nursing-home
facilities. Plaintiffs assert both federal constitutional and statutory claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981, 1983, 1985; 5 U.S.C. § 301; 28 U.S.C. §§ 2674, 2680(h); and 18 U.S.C. § 1961, as well

as supplemental state-law based torts claims. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive
relief. (Docs. #1; 99).
This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued on August 29, 2013 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to
whom this case was previously assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). (Doc. #26). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against the following Defendants:
Defendant South Carolina Department of Social Services and Defendant South Carolina
Ombudsman’s Office.1 (See Doc. #26). The Magistrate Judge’s Report recommends that those
Defendants be summarily dismissed without prejudice as Defendants in the above-captioned case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because those Defendants are immune from Plaintiffs’
federal and state law claims under the Eleventh Amendment.
The Plaintiffs did not file Objections to the Report and Recommendation. The deadline
for the parties to file Objections to the Report expired on September 16, 2013. (Doc. #26).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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 the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

1

The Magistrate Judge’s Report further recommended dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant the
State of South Carolina and the South Carolina Office on Aging under the same reasoning. However,
Plaintiffs’ subsequently filed Amended Complaint (Doc. #99) did not list the State of South Carolina or
the South Carolina Office on Aging as Defendants in this case. Therefore, the State of South Carolina
and the South Carolina Office on Aging have been dismissed as Defendants in the instant case pursuant to
the Amended Complaint. (Docs. #99; 100).

2

The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and all other relevant filings in this matter. After careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED
that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #26) is ACCEPTED.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Defendant South Carolina Department of Social Services and Defendant South
Carolina Ombudsman’s Office be dismissed without prejudice as Defendants in the abovecaptioned case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
May 21, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

3