Lott v. Barfield et al

Filing 13

ORDER and OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 8) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice (Dkt. No. 1). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/26/2024. (ltap, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Mark Lott,
v.

Case No. 6:24-cv-05341-RMG
Plaintiff,
ORDER AND OPINION

Diana Barfield, Ron Lawrenz, Eric Ramos,
Lisa Young,
Defendants.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge
recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff objected. (Dkt. No. 11).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as the Order of the Court, dismissing
Plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. No. 1).
I.

Background
Plaintiff Mark Lott, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this § 1983 action

alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff
claims that on July 10, 2024, Defendants were responsible for Plaintiff’s medical shoes being
taken. (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff alleges that his replacement shoes hurt his feet and that his complaints
to Defendants were ignored for days until his medical shoes were returned on July 25, 2024. (Id.).
The plaintiff’s injuries include bruises on his feet, swelling in his feet, knots on his feet, and reaggravation of injuries to his feet. (Id. at 6).
II.

Legal Standard
A. Review of R&R
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court that has no presumptive

weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v.
1

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)(C). Where the plaintiff objects to the R&R, the Court “makes a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id. Where the plaintiff has not objected to the R&R, the Court reviews the
R&R only to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note; see also Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (“In the absence of objection ... we do not believe that it requires
any explanation.”).
III.

Discussion
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights when his medical shoes were taken

away for two weeks while in custody. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5–6). As the Magistrate Judge noted,
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are evaluated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, which requires balancing the individual’s liberty interests against the relevant state
interests, but “deference must be given to decisions of professionals.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457
U.S. 307, 321 (1982). Further, decisions by professionals are presumptively valid and liability may
be imposed only when their decisions “is such a substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base
the decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323.
The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants exercised professional
judgment in determining that the medical shoes needed to be removed, and that the Court should
refrain from interfering with the operation of state institutions relating to security determinations.
In balancing state interests against Plaintiff’s liberty interests, and giving deference to professional
2

decisions, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that deprivations of property by state
employees does not violate the Due Process clause if there is a meaningful post-deprivation
remedy, which exists in South Carolina.
After examination of the record, the R&R and objections, this Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8).
IV.

Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 8) as the Order of the

Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice (Dkt. No. 1).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/ Richard M. Gergel_
Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Judge
November 26, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

3