Frasier v. Littles et al
Filing
57
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation 52 of the Magistrate Judge to the extent it is consistent with this Order. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. For the reasons set forth herein and in the Report and Recommendation, Defendants' motion for summary judgment 42 is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 11/25/2013. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
David Frasier, #165572,
Plaintiff,
vs.
)
)
)
)
Civil Actipn No.: 4:12-1596-MGL
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
Officer Frankie Littles, sued in his individual )
capacity; Lt. Brayboy,sued in his individuaL, )
)
capacity,
'
)
Defendants. )
)
This matter comes before the court on the Report, and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that th~ Cpurt grant the motion of Defendants Lt. Brayboy
and Officer Frankie Littles ("Defendants") forsummary judgment. For the reasons forth
.
'
below, the court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
Pro Se Plaintiff David Frasier ("Plaintiff'), an inmate at the Evans Correctional
Institution in Bennettsville, South Caroliha, filed this action against Defendants alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (E9F No .. 1). More
specifically, Plaintiff alleges thaf Defendants, who were officers at Evans Correctional
"
Instituti.on, interfered with and de'iayed his medical care by failing to provide him with an
incident report so that he could report to the prison medical department.
remedies; (2) that Plaintiff had failed to assert a clafm for deliberate indifference; (3) that
they are entitled to qualified immunity from any lTlonetary relief brought against them by
Plaintiff in their individual capacities; and, (4) that Plaintiff cannot seek damages under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the state or state officials.
(ECF No. 42).
Plaintiff, opposes
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46),
On March 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the present Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 52) recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion
for summary judgment finding that the record creates no genuine issue of material fact to
support Plaintiff's deliberate indifferenc~ claim and that Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity in their individual capacity. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that, to
the extent Plaintiff sbught a claim against Defendants in their official capacity, Defendants
are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from monetary damages and that any
remaining state claims should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Id. T,he Magistrate
Judge advised Plaintiff of the pr9ceduresand requirements for filing objections to the
Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. (ECF
No. 52-1). Plaintiff"filed timely objections on November 15, 2013. (ECF No. 54).
, LEGAL STANDARD
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the respons'ibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber,'423 U.S, 261 (1976). The
28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff makes two specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 54). First, Plaintiff objects to the conclusion that defendant
did not act with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs medical needs. Second, Plaintiffobjects
to the Magistrate Judge's finding t~at qualified imlilunityshields Defendants from liability.
Upon review, the court finds that Plaintiff's objections do not provide it with reason to reject
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
A. Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs
Plaintiff asserts a cause of action against Defendants for deliberate indifference to
his seriou~ med ical needs: "ID]eliberate indifference to seri.ous m~dical needs of prisoners.
constitutes _
the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" prohibited by the Eighth
Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285,50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).
"Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to an inmate's serious illness or injury is
actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983...." Mi./tierv.
~eorn,
896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir.1990).
A serious medical need "is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating
treatment or one that is so obvious that even a -lay pe~son would easily r~cognize the
n~cessity
for a doctor's attention,:" Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225j 241 (4th Cir.20Q8). "A
delay in treatment may constitute deliberate indifference if the de.lay exac~rbated the injury
or unnecessarily prolonged an inmate's pain." Abrahamv. McDonald, 493 F. App'x 465,
and denied him such. Further, the record indicates that, at' most there was onlya short
delay in Plaintiff's b¢ing able to g<;> to the medical departm~nt Plaintiff clearly objects to
the delay in his obtaining m43dicaLcare..
However, thereis no
.
.
,1
• .'
m~dical
.
evidence in the record that.any such qelays resulted
.
.
.
,
.
in any injury to Plaintiff. Hill v. Dekalb Regional youth Qetention Center, 40F.3d 1176,
1188-1189 (11th Cir.1994) (holding "[an
inmat~
who complains that delay in medical
treatment rose to a constitutional violation must place verifying medical evidence in the
record to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment to succeed"),
overruled in part by Hope v. Pelter, 536.U.S. 730, 739 n.9, 122 S.Ct. 2508,153 LEd.2d
666 (2002).
In this case, Plaintiff has failed to allege how any such delay in his treatment
resulted in a detrimental effect or significant injury.
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court
cannotfindthat Defendants' treatment of.Plaintiff was "so.
grossly ihcompetent, inadequate,
'
,
.
,
.
or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness."
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. Although the Constitution does require that prisoners be provided
with a certain minimum level of medical treatment, itdoes.not guarantee toa prisoner the
.
treatment of his choice."
.
Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d811, 817 (1st Cir.1988).
A
disagreement as to the proper treatment to be received does not in and of itself state a
constitu~ional
violation. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Jl,Jdge that
Plaintiff has not presented evidence that Defendants were deliberately and intentionally
qualified immunity protects government officials "'fromliabiHty for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
a reasonable person would have known.'" Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231,129
S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.'2d 565 (2009) (quoting Harlow\/' Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818,102
S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.?d 396 (1982». Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion
that Def~ndants are entitled to qualified immunity.· Because Plaintiff fails to show that
Defendants violated; any clearly established rights,. the court finds that Defendants are
entitled to qualified immunity.1
CONCLUSION
The court has reviewed the Ma,gistrate Judge's ~eport and Recommendation.
Plaintiff's objections, and the record and has conducted ade novo review of the issues
raised in this case. The Court is satisfied that the Magistrate Judge has rightly determined
that Plaintiff has no claim for relief under § 1983 in light of the applicable law. Based on
the foregoing, the, Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
to the extent it is consistent with this Onjer. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. For the
reasons set forth herein and in the Report and Recommendation, Defendants' motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED. ,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
stMary G. Lewis
. Unitec;t States District Judge .
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Nnvp.mhp.r?fi ?01::\
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?