Stephens et al v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Summary Judgment by South Carolina Department of Corrections, Warden Leroy Cartledge, Warden Michael Stephan; adopting 74 Report and Recomme ndation in full. (1) Plaintiff's §1983 claims brought against Defendant Cartledge in his individual capacity for failure to protect, supervisory liability, and failure to train; and (2)Plaintiff's state law claims for negligen ce, gross negligence, and injunctive relief against SCDC. Additionally, the Court grants Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment as to the remainder of Plaintiff's claims, which are dismissed with prejudice. This case will be set for trial during the May/June 2021 term of court with a scheduling order to be filed. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/18/21.(mflo, ) Modified on 3/18/2021 to add text (mflo, ).

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kaseem Stephens,

C/A No. 4:17-3482-JFA
Plaintiff,

vs.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
South Carolina Department of Corrections;
Warden Leroy Cartledge, individually and in
his official capacity as warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution; Warden Michael
Stephan, individually and in his official
capacity as warden of McCormick
Correctional Institution,
Defendants.

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Kaseem Stephens (“Plaintiff” or “Stephens”) filed this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (“SCTCA”), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10
et seq. (ECF No. 9). Although this case was originally a multi-Plaintiff action removed to federal
court from the McCormick County Court of Common Pleas on December 28, 2017, the cases were
later severed into separate actions. (ECF No. 1; 30). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this case was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69) by
South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), Warden Leroy Cartledge (“Cartledge”), and
Warden Michael Stephan (“Stephan”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a Response in
Opposition (ECF No. 72) and Defendants timely filed their Reply. (ECF No. 73). The Magistrate

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 2 of 15

Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF
No. 74) and opines that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 69) should be
granted in part and denied in part. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards
of law on this matter, and the Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on July 22, 2020. (ECF No. 74). On August 4, 2020, Defendants timely filed Objections
(ECF No. 75),2 and Plaintiff filed a Reply on August 18, 2020. (ECF No. 77). Thus, this matter is
ripe for the Court’s review.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report

to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court is only required to conduct
a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection
is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. &
Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the
Report of the Magistrate, this court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Thus, the court must

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made,
and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
2
The Report recommends granting summary judgment as to the claims against Stephan and Defendants do
not object.
1

2

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 3 of 15

only review those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has made a specific written objection.
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).
“An objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—
factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the
Carolinas, LLC, No. 0:15-cv-04009-JMC, 2017 WL 6345402, at *5 n.6 (D.S.C. Dec. 12, 2017)
(citing One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)).
A specific objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report thus requires more than a reassertion of
arguments from the complaint or a mere citation to legal authorities. See Workman v. Perry, No.
6:17-cv-00765-RBH, 2017 WL 4791150, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 23, 2017). A specific objection must
“direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
“Generally stated, nonspecific objections have the same effect as would a failure to object.”
Staley v. Norton, No. 9:07-0288-PMD, 2007 WL 821181, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2007) (citing
Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). The court
reviews portions “not objected to—including those portions to which only ‘general and
conclusory’ objections have been made—for clear error.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Diamond,
416 F.3d at 315; Camby, 718 F.2d at 200; Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47).
The legal standard employed in a motion for summary judgment is well-settled and
correctly stated within the Report. Accordingly, that standard is incorporated herein without a
recitation.
III.

DISCUSSION
This action arises from an alleged inmate-on-inmate attack that occurred at McCormick

Correctional Institution (“McCormick”). Although the Magistrate Judge provides a thorough

3

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 4 of 15

recitation of the facts which is incorporated by reference, a brief summary is necessary to address
Defendants’ objections.
Plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at McCormick when, on or about November 19, 2015,
he was allegedly stabbed “multiple times” after other inmates entered his room and demanded his
cell phone. (ECF No. 9). The attack occurred after SCDC personnel informed Plaintiff that
“someone had threatened to kill him” and moved Plaintiff into another cell and then to another
wing. (Id). Plaintiff states he declined Defendant Cartledge’s offer of protective custody because
“no one could tell him what the real threat to him was” and he did not want to be locked up in his
room for twenty-three hours a day. (Id). Plaintiff alleges that Correctional Officer Goldman did
not lock his room and left the wing without being relieved, in violation of Defendant SCDC’s
policies and procedures.3 (Id). Several inmates subsequently entered Plaintiff’s room, where he
was “stabbed in the right side of his face, severing his right ear” as well as being stabbed in the
spine, leaving him permanently paralyzed. (Id).
Plaintiff alleges he sustained significant injuries from the attack but did not receive the
medical treatment promised by prison officials following his discharge from the hospital. (Id). He
further alleges that these injuries were the direct result of SCDC’s gross negligence by failing to
employ sufficient correctional officers or to enforce sufficient training policies and procedures, as
well as the result of Cartledge’s and/or Stephan’s gross negligence by failing to ensure that
correctional officers complied with the existing SCDC policies and procedures. (Id).
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges four causes of action: (1) injunctive relief
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-43-30 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) deliberate indifference against

3

It is unclear the temporal proximity of the events alleged in this paragraph. In other words, there is no
clarification of whether all of the events alleged occurred on the same day or over a period of time prior
to the assault at issue.

4

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 5 of 15

Cartledge “and/or” Stephan pursuant to § 1983; and (3) failure to implement appropriate policies,
customs, and practices against Cartledge “and/or” Stephan pursuant to § 1983; and (4) violation
of the SCTCA against SCDC. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks relief under the “the Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” (ECF No. 9). The claims against
Cartledge and Stephan are brought against each in his individual and official capacities. Cartledge,
Stephan, and SCDC here jointly move to dismiss all claims on summary judgment.
The Court conducted a de novo review of the record on summary judgment, in light of
Defendants’ objections to the Report (ECF No. 75), and finds that the Magistrate Judge ably
addressed the issues in a comprehensive forty-five-page Report, correctly determining that
Defendants’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court adopts the Report as the order of the Court and therefore, Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
a. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment based on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for injunctive relief against Defendants and § 1983
claim for monetary damages against Cartledge and Stephan in their official capacities because the
Eleventh Amendment bars these claims. Defendants did not file objections on this ground and in
Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’ objections, Plaintiff requests the Court adopt the Report and
Recommendation in full. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate
Judge, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and
grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for injunctive

5

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 6 of 15

relief against all Defendants and Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for monetary damages against Cartledge
and Stephan in their official capacities because the Eleventh Amendment bars these claims.
b. Constitutional Claims against Defendants Cartledge and Stephan
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
on Plaintiff’s claims for violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff alleges
Cartledge and Stephan acted under color of state law to deprive Plaintiff of certain constitutionally
protected rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff’s claims are based on allegations of deliberate indifference
and failure to adequately train and supervise SCDC employees. However, as the Report sets out,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, not a pretrial detainee, and as such his claims implicate the Eighth
Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, not the Fourteenth Amendment’s
requirement of due process.
Defendants did not file objections on this ground and in Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’
objections, Plaintiff requests the Court adopt the Report and Recommendation in full. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby, 718 F.2d at 199. Therefore,
the Court adopts the Report on this ground and grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
based on Plaintiff’s claims for violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Cartledge.
In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cartledge acted in a grossly negligence
manner and with deliberate indifference by allowing uncontrolled violence in the correctional
institution, failing to provide protection and security for the Plaintiff, and allowing inmates to have

6

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 7 of 15

dangerous weapons. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Cartledge failed to adequately train
and supervise SCDC employees, and he “implicitly or explicitly, adopted and implemented
careless and reckless policies, customs, and practices, including . . . failing to prevent inmates from
obtaining and possessing dangerous weapons.” (ECF No. 9).
Defendants filed objections to the Report on this ground—discussed infra—disagreeing
with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that summary judgment is improper on the basis that
Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence.
c. Plaintiff’s State Law Claims for Violation of SCTCA
The Magistrate Judge concluded the Eleventh Amendment does not bar Plaintiff’s state
law claims against Defendant SCDC. The Magistrate Judge explained that “by voluntarily
removing a case to federal court, a defendant waives any immunity from suit in federal court with
respect to any claims it otherwise would have been subject to in state court.” Lapides v. Board of
Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S 613, 619 (2002). In other words, the
Eleventh Amendment does not provide Defendant SCDC with immunity because it would have
been subject to the same claims in state court pursuant to the SCTCA. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion and finds the Eleventh Amendment does not bar Plaintiff’s state
law claims against Defendant SCDC.
The Court adopts the Report’s recommendation that summary judgment should be denied
as to Plaintiff’s state law claims for negligence and gross negligence against SCDC. Defendants
did not file objections on this ground and in his reply to Defendants’ objections, Plaintiff requests
the Court adopt the Report and Recommendation in full. In the absence of specific objections to
the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. See Camby, 718 F.2d at 199. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and

7

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 8 of 15

Recommendation and denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s state law
claims for violation of the SCTCA.
d. State Law Claim for Injunctive Relief
Because SCDC voluntarily removed this case to federal court and South Carolina has
consented to suit for tort claims filed against it in state court, the Magistrate Judge opines SCDC
is subject to suit in this Court for the state law claims asserted against it. The Magistrate Judge
recommends Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under state law proceed against SCDC.4 In their
objections, Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge fails to explain how Plaintiff lacks an
adequate remedy at law or will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. Defendants
also assert the Report errs in concluding that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is not mooted
by his transfer to a different correctional institution.
Defendants presented identical arguments in their motion for summary judgment, and the
Magistrate Judge has already addressed these thoroughly. As to Plaintiff’s alleged failure to
establish an adequate remedy at law, the Magistrate Judge explained that monetary damages are
not an adequate remedy because Plaintiff’s allegations involve the alleged inadequate safety and
security within SCDC. When considering the evidence in the record, the Court agrees with
Plaintiff’s argument that monetary damages cannot replace Plaintiff’s potential loss of life due to
the potential threat to his safety he faces while incarcerated in an SCDC institution.
For this same reason, Plaintiff’s transfer to another SCDC correctional institution does not
moot his claim. He still faces a potential risk of harm regardless of the institution in which he is
incarcerated because each institution in South Carolina is controlled by Defendant SCDC. The
Magistrate Judge points to the Roth Report as persuasive evidence that the alleged lack of adequate

4

Given that Cartledge and Stephan are no longer employed at McCormick, there is no basis for Plaintiff’s
state law claim for injunctive relief to proceed against them.

8

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 9 of 15

staffing and incidents of contraband and assaults may not just be issues at McCormick, but rather,
at all thirteen SCDC institutions. Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and
denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to his state law claim for injunctive relief
against Defendant SCDC.
e. Defendants’ Objections
Defendants contend the Magistrate Judge erred in finding summary judgment improper
because: (1) there is evidence that Defendants offered Plaintiff protective custody, (2) Plaintiff has
failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims, (3) Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive
relief, and (4) Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support any medical treatment
claim against SCDC. (ECF No. 75). Having addressed Defendants’ arguments on injunctive relief
above, the Court turns to the remaining objections.
Defendants first posit “Any offer of protective custody invalidates any federal or state law
claim based on alleged deliberate indifference or gross negligence.” (ECF No. 75). No citation is
provided for this unqualified assertion. Defendants presented identical arguments in their motion
for summary judgment and the Magistrate Judge has already addressed these arguments
thoroughly. The Court finds that Defendants’ objection is improper and does not warrant de novo
review. However, to the extent that Defendants’ objection is considered, the Court finds it
unpersuasive.
In Stewart v. Johnson, the defendants argued the plaintiff's grievances did not make them
subjectively aware of a serious and substantial threat to his safety because he specifically asked
not to be placed in protective custody. 2020 WL 6119895, at *9 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 16, 2020). Where
it was undisputed that the plaintiff affirmatively made a request against administration segregation

9

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 10 of 15

or protective custody, the defendants asserted that, because of this request, a reasonable juror could
come to only one conclusion: the plaintiff did not face a serious risk of harm. Id.
However, the court concluded that just because an undisputed fact gives rise to a possible
conclusion does not mean that summary judgment is warranted when other evidence in the record
weighs against that conclusion. Id. The Court reaches the same conclusion in the case at bar. The
summary judgment standard requires evidence to be construed in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant—here, Plaintiff. Plaintiff's request against protective custody ultimately goes to
Plaintiff's credibility and is properly left for the jury. Summary judgment is therefore not
appropriate on this basis.
Among their objections, Defendants next submit there is insufficient evidence to defeat
summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims against Cartledge and SCDC. (ECF No. 75). In support
of this contention, Defendants assert the “pieces of evidence relied upon by the Magistrate do not
establish sufficient notice as to Defendants.” (Id.). Specifically, Defendants take issue with the
Magistrate Judge’s reliance on the Roth Report and prior inmate-on-inmate assaults at
McCormick.
Defendants’ objection restates the arguments set forth in Defendants’ summary judgment
briefing. Objections which merely restate arguments already presented to and ruled on by the
magistrate judge do not constitute specific objections. See Frazier v. Wal-Mart, C.A. No. 6:111434-MGL, 2012 WL 5381201, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2012); Ashworth v. Cartledge, Civ. A. No.
6:11-cv-01472-JMC, 2012 WL 931084, at *1 (D.S.C. March 19, 2012). Additionally, objections
which “merely express disagreement with the magistrate judge’s Report . . . in lieu of any actual
argument or specific assertion of error in the magistrate judge’s findings” do not constitute specific
objections requiring de novo review by this court. Lowdermilk v. LaManna, Civ. A. No. 8:07-

10

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 11 of 15

2944-GRA, 2009 WL 2601470, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2009); see also Orpiano v. Johnson, 687
F.2d 44, 47–48 (4th Cir. 1982) (noting that de novo review is not required where a party makes
only general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the Report).
However, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will address those arguments.
The Court disagrees with Defendants’ position challenging the weight of the Roth Report
in the summary judgment calculus. The Magistrate Judge does not improperly use the Roth Report
as conclusive evidence but rather, uses it as support in denying Defendants’ motion because it
creates a genuine dispute as to whether Defendants were aware of the alleged understaffing issues
and whether those issues contributed to Plaintiff’s attack. Therefore, the Court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s reliance on the Roth Report is proper and overrules Defendants’ objections.
Defendants’ objections further posit that “prior inmate on inmate assaults are insufficient
to defeat Defendants’ summary judgment motion on the Plaintiff’s claim of supervisory liability.”
(ECF No. 75). Defendants also argue the Magistrate Judge imposed an improper “general notice”
standard on Plaintiff’s claims of gross negligence and deliberate indifference. (Id.). The Court first
notes that Defendants’ objection fails to cite or otherwise reference where in the Report the
Magistrate Judge imposes such standard. States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007)
(objections must be specific and particularized in order to direct the attention of the district court
to “only those issues that remain in dispute after the magistrate judge has made findings and
recommendations”). Defendants’ objection is improper and does not warrant de novo review.
However, to the extent the objection is considered, Defendants’ argument misses the mark.
The Magistrate Judge never imposed a general notice standard or strict liability upon Defendants.
In fact, the Magistrate Judge made clear that the Supreme Court has outlined two requirements for
an Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. First, “a prison official’s act or omission must result

11

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 12 of 15

in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). Second, the prison
official must have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind,” id., meaning the official either
purposefully caused the harm or acted with “deliberate indifference,” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S.
294, 302–03 (1991). A prison official demonstrates deliberate indifference if he “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
Further, the Magistrate Judge explained that Plaintiff could establish a genuine issue of
material fact as to Defendant Cartledge’s deliberate indifference by showing that a “substantial
risk of serious harm was longstanding, pervasive, and well-documented before the attack on him
occurred.” Wynn v. Perry, 2018 WL 1077321, at 28 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2018). Here, Plaintiff has
sufficiently demonstrated, through the Roth Report, that he was subject to a substantial risk of
serious harm that was longstanding, pervasive, and well documented before his attack on or about
November 19, 2015. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge refers to the Roth Report which revealed
“McCormick was severely understaffed during the relevant time period, thereby curtailing the
ability of SCDC employees to adequately monitor the inmates and address incidents of contraband
and assault.” Additionally, the Roth Report considered the impact of staffing levels on incidents
of assault at McCormick, noting that “overall assaults occur at a higher than acceptable level.” The
Magistrate Judge took special care to walk through the evidence Plaintiff presented in order to
demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to Defendant Cartledge’s deliberate
indifference to a threat to Plaintiff’s safety.
Defendants’ final argument on this point is that the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning implies
that Defendants would be found grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent any time an inmate
was assaulted and McCormick was not fully staffed. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.

12

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 13 of 15

The argument suggests Plaintiff’s attack was an isolated incident that occurred when McCormick
happened to be lacking a full complement of correctional officers. However, Plaintiff’s evidence
indicates otherwise. As the Magistrate Judge states, Plaintiff was attacked on or about November
19, 2015 and in that same year there were seventeen (17) incidents of inmate-on-inmate assaults
and fifty-three (53) weapon-related incidents at McCormick. Further, the Roth Report stated that
beginning in 2015, McCormick experienced a decline in staffing levels that continued through
2017, with an increase on inmate-on-inmate assaults between 2015 and 2017. Defendants’
argument that Defendants would be found grossly negligent or deliberately indifferent any time an
assault occurred is inconsistent with the facts of this case.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Magistrate Judge found
the Roth Report creates an inference that the risk of harm to inmates at McCormick prior to
Plaintiff’s assault on or about November 19, 2015 was longstanding, pervasive, and welldocumented. Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the Magistrate Judge properly used these
conclusions to find a genuine issue of material fact such that summary judgment would be
improper. Defendants’ objection is overruled.
The basis of Defendants’ fourth objection is a request to the Court for disambiguation as
to the Report’s resolution of a particular claim:
Finally, the Report and Recommendation concluded that the
Plaintiff’s medical treatment claim against Defendant Cartledge
should be dismissed. It is unclear whether the Magistrate
recommended that Plaintiff’s medical treatment claim against
SCDC also be dismissed as Plaintiff has offered insufficient
evidence to support the continuation of any medical treatment claim.
Defendants seek clarification on this point.
(ECF No. 75). Plaintiff’s reply (ECF No. 77) defends this claim. However, the claim addressed by
the Report is distinct from the medical claim asserted by Plaintiff against SCDC in the amended
13

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 14 of 15

complaint. (ECF No. 9). The claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical need is among the
specific constitutional claims alleged against Cartledge and Stephan and is addressed thoroughly
in the Report, but a corresponding claim is not evaluated with specificity against SCDC . (ECF
No. 74). Nonetheless, the Court notes “fail[ure] to provide necessary, appropriate and proper
medical” care is among Plaintiff’s allegations of negligence and gross negligence against SCDC
in the amended complaint. (ECF No. 9). Accordingly, the Court infers from the Report that insofar
as the claims pertaining to an alleged lack of medical treatment rendered to Plaintiff are part of the
claims of negligence and gross negligence pursuant to the SCTCA against SCDC and discrete
from Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against
Cartledge and Stephan, the Magistrate Judge recommends summary judgment should be denied.
Therefore, the Court adopts the Report on this ground.
f. Qualified Immunity
This case is one of the numerous actions assigned to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial
proceedings that have been filed by Plaintiff’s counsel concerning inmate violence and
understaffing at the South Carolina Department of Corrections. See, e.g. Battle v. SCDC et al.,
2:18-cv-719-TMC-MGB; Dexter Crawford v. SCDC, et al., 6:18-cv-2407; Craig Ellerbe v. SCDC,
et al., 6:19-cv-96; Jamarcus Murray v. SCDC, et al., 6:19-cv-100. The Court takes notice that
many of these cases are on interlocutory appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue
of qualified immunity where defense counsel failed to object to the Report’s denial of qualified
immunity and therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation on that subject did not warrant
de novo review by the district court.
In the case at bar, the Magistrate Judge determined that Defendant Cartledge is not entitled
to qualified immunity because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant

14

4:17-cv-03482-JFA

Date Filed 03/18/21

Entry Number 84

Page 15 of 15

Cartledge violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights. Defendants did not object to the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation on qualified immunity. Therefore, the Court denies summary judgment
with respect to Defendant Cartledge’s claim of qualified immunity
IV.

CONCLUSION
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the thorough Report

and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in full. (ECF No. 74). Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore
granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 69). Specifically, the Court adopts the Report and
denies Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff’s §
1983 claims brought against Defendant Cartledge in his individual capacity for failure to protect,
supervisory liability, and failure to train; and (2) Plaintiff’s state law claims for negligence, gross
negligence, and injunctive relief against SCDC. Additionally, the Court adopts the Report and
grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims, which
are dismissed with prejudice.
This case will be set for trial for the May/June 2021 term of court with jury selection on
Friday, May 7, 2021 and trial beginning on May 24, 2021. The Court will issue a scheduling order
setting forth the pretrial obligations of the parties for matters such as exhibits, witness lists, and
motions in limine. The deadlines in the forthcoming trial schedule are all required in the Local
Rules for the district and will not be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 18, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
15