Lott v. Budz et al

Filing 92

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 86) as the order of the Court and GRANTS Defendants motion for summary judgment. This case is dismissed with prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 6/8/20.(ltap, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mark T. Lott

)
)
)
v.
)
)
Timothy Budtz, Jared Anderson, and
)
Chris Kunkle,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Plaintiff,

C.A. No. 6:19-1087-RMG
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 86), recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 89).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court that has no
presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). This Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R
Plaintiff specifically objects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Where Plaintiff fails to file any specific
objections, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead 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) (internal
quotation omitted). “Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.” Wilson v. S.C. Dept of Corr.,

2

No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG, 2015 WL 1124701, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015). See also Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983).
Plaintiff is currently a civilly committed individual in the custody of the South Carolina
Department of Mental Health under the provisions of the South Carolina Sexually Violent
Predator Act, S.C. Code Section 44-48-10 et seq. Under an interagency agreement with the
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Plaintiff is housed in a segregated unit at the Broad
River Correctional Institution. The program is administered by a private contractor, Correct
Care of South Carolina d/b/a Wellpath (“CCSC”). The named Defendants are supervisory staff
for CCSC administering the sexually violent predator program. (Dkt. No. 86 at 1-2).
Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to protect him from two assaults by a fellow
resident in the sexually violent predator program, referred to as “K.” The Magistrate Judge
correctly notes that Plaintiff’s custodial status is similar to a pre-trial detainee and he is entitled
to the protections of the Eighth Amendment. To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff
must show a “deliberate” or “callous indifference” on the part of prison officials to the a
“specific known risk of harm.” Pressley v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1987). This
requires a showing that a prison official acted with deliberate indifference to “actual knowledge
that an inmate faces substantial risk of serious harm and disregards the risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994).
The Magistrate Judge ably described in detail the Defendant’s limited knowledge
regarding any threat “K” posed to Plaintiff prior to the first assault and their actions thereafter,
which included sanctioning “K” and offering Plaintiff protective custody if he ever felt
threatened. Plaintiff never requested protective custody prior to the second assault. (Dkt. No. 86
at 9-11). The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants, on this record, were

2

entitled to summary judgment on claims of violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights and
supervisory liability and that they were additionally entitled to qualified immunity.
The Court ADOPTS the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 86) as the order of the
Court and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. This case is dismissed with
prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard M. Gergel_________________
Richard M. Gergel
United States District Judge

June 8, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina

2