Aten v. Richland County et al

Filing 132

ORDER adopting 95 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on December 13, 2017.(jmcg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Brian Dale Aten,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Richland County; John Doe Architects,
)
Contractors, and Subcontractors of the
)
Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center,
)
individually and/or in his Official Capacity; )
M.B. Kahn Construction Company,
)
individually and/or in its official capacity; )
and the South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

C.A. No.: 5:16-cv-3614-PMD-KDW
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Kaymani D.
West’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (ECF Nos. 113 & 95). In her R & R, Magistrate
Judge West recommends granting Defendant M.B. Kahn Construction Company’s motion for
summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections,
adopts the R & R, and grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises out of an incident that occurred at the Alvin S. Glenn
Detention Center. Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell after being instructed to jump over water
that had flooded into his cell and that he suffered several injuries as a result. He alleges that the
flooding in his cell was the result of defective construction at the Alvin S. Glenn detention center,
and brings various causes of action against Richland County, the architects, contractors, and

subcontractors who worked on the detention center, the South Carolina Department of Corrections,
and M. B. Kahn.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The R & R has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). Parties may make written objections to
the R & R within fourteen days after being served with a copy of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R & R to which a specific objection is
made, and it may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations
in whole or in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive more evidence or recommit the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is taken as the party’s
agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Absent a timely, specific objection—or as to those portions of the R & R to which no specific
objection is made—this Court “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 & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Pro se filings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, Gordon
v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and federal district courts must construe such
pleadings liberally to allow the development of potentially meritorious claims, see Hughes v.
Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam). The liberal construction requirement, however, does not
mean courts can ignore a clear failure to allege facts that set forth claims cognizable in federal
district court. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

2

DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment because there is no genuine issue of material fact. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that Plaintiff had failed to provide evidence that showed Defendant had performed any
work on the detention center, which completely undermines each of Plaintiff’s causes of action.
Plaintiff makes several objections to the R & R, as well as a request to the Court, but none of those
objections provide any evidence showing that Defendant actually performed work on the detention
center.
Plaintiff first argues that he should be permitted to retain Defendant in the case until the
detention center properly identifies the contractors and subcontractors that did actually perform
construction work on the detention center. That is plainly improper. If Defendant is entitled to
summary judgment because it did not perform any of the construction work at the detention center,
then the detention center’s failure to identify the contractors that actually performed the
construction work does not operate to preclude Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 1
Plaintiff’s remedy for the allegedly improper identification is against the detention center, not
Defendant.
Next, Plaintiff takes issue with William Cram’s affidavit in support of Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that Cram has not stated what services
Defendant provided to the detention center. Cram is an executive vice president at M.B. Kahn,
and he does in fact aver in his affidavit that M.B. Kahn’s role with the detention center’s
construction was limited to reporting to Richland County as to what work has been performed by
others. Cram’s affidavit is uncontested evidence of Defendant’s limited role as a reporter on the

1. In addition, Defendant has even assuaged Plaintiff’s concerns by stating that LPS Construction Company was
the general contractor for the detention center construction.

3

construction work at the detention center. Because Defendant did not actually perform any of the
work that Plaintiff alleges is responsible for his injuries, Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue
of material fact sufficient to defeat Defendant’s motion.
Finally, Plaintiff requests permission to file sanctions against counsel for the detention
center, and states that he has asked the detention center’s counsel what project Defendant was
involved in, but that the detention center’s counsel has not responded. To the extent Plaintiff
wishes to impose sanctions against the detention center or its counsel, he needs to do so by filing
the appropriate motion under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will
consider such a request only if it is in the proper form, and expresses no opinion as to whether such
a motion is advisable or meritorious.
As recognized by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact sufficient to defeat Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, that
motion is granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 13, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

4