Moody v. United States of America

Filing 34

ORDER granting 32 Motion to Substitute Party. United States added. S Smith (Counselor), P. Weathers (Mental Doctor), Edward Reed (Medical Doctor) and C Rhodes (Manager) terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 03/12/2015.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
CHARLES D. MOODY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
C. RHODES, MANAGER; S. SMITH,
)
COUNSELOR; P. WEATHERS,
)
MEDICAL DOCTOR; and EDWARD
)
REED, MEDICAL DOCTOR;
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:14-cv-3813-JMC-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, originally filed this action in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida. Plaintiff named the United States as the only Defendant and
brought his claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., alleging that
he received injuries while in custody at the Federal Correctional Institution in Estill, South Carolina
as a result of the negligence or lack of care of certain federal employees. Plaintiff later amended his
complaint and named the above-captioned Defendants. He removed the United States as a
Defendant as well as any specific reference to the FTCA but continued to allege that he suffered
injuries as a result of the negligence or lack of care of Defendants. Subsequently, the Middle District
of Florida entered an order transferring Plaintiff’s case to this district. All pretrial proceedings in
this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC.
Presently before the court is Defendants’ motion for substitution of party (Document # 32).
Defendants seek to substitute the United States as the only Defendant in this action. Plaintiff has not
filed a response to this motion. FTCA, as amended by the Federal Employees Liability Reform and
Tort Compensation Act of 1988 § 5, Pub. L. No. 100-694, 102 Stat. 4563 (1988), provides that a suit

against the United States shall be the exclusive remedy for persons with claims for damages resulting
from the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of federal employees taken within the scope of their
office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1).
Title 28, U.S.C., § 2679(d)(2) provides that upon certification by the Attorney General that
a federal employee was acting within the scope of his or her office of employment at the time of the
incident out of which a state law claim arises, any civil action arising out of the incident shall be
deemed an action brought against the United States, and the United States shall be substituted as sole
defendant with respect to those claims. The Attorney General has delegated certification authority
to the United States Attorneys. 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (1993).
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina, has certified
that Defendants Rhodes, Smith, Weathers, and Reed, employees or former employees of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the incident
alleged in the amended complaint, and that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) and (2), the United
States should be substituted as the sole defendant. See Certification of Scope of Employment
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d) (Ex. to Def. Motion). Defendant has not alleged any constitutional
violations that could give rise to a claim against any of the individual Defendants. Therefore, the
motion for substitution is (Document # 32) is GRANTED and the United States is substituted as the
Defendant in this action in place of Defendants Rhodes, Smith, Weathers, and Reed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
March 12, 2015
Florence, South Carolina

1

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) allows a party to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s order.

-2-