Williams v. Jones et al

Filing 57

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 51 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion for Summary Judgment, granted as to the defendants in their official capacities and denied a s to the defendants in their individual capacities; notifying parties the claims remaining in this case against the defendants in their individual capacities shall be tried before a jury during the May/June 2013 term of court, with jury selection to occur on for May 7, 2013; appointing Amanda Pittman, Esq. to represent the plaintiff at trial; setting a pretrial conference for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 16, 2013; and directing Plaintiff Williams that he should come to the pretrial conference pr epared to provide to Ms. Pittman the identity of all witnesses that he wishes to have called on his behalf at the trial and also bring with him all documentation he intends to introduce by way of evidence at the trial. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 03/20/2013. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Rackim Lavan Williams,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Capt. P. Jones; Capt. A. Wilson; Sgt. H.
Wright; Lt. S. Toland; Sgt. R. Brown; Lt. E.
Hambrick; and Lt. K. Parker,
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A: 8:12-365-JFA-JDA

ORDER

This is an action by the plaintiff, Rackim Lavan Williams, against several correctional
officers at the Broad River Correctional Institution. Plaintiff, who was incarcerated BRCI at
the time, contends that the defendants used excessive force when removing him from his cell.
He asserts claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The defendants have moved for summary judgment.1 The Magistrate Judge assigned
to this action2 has issued a comprehensive Report and Recommendation in which she
recommends that: (1) defendants are not entitled to summary judgment because of plaintiff’s
failure to exhaust his remedies; (2) that the defendants, in their official capacities, should be
1

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying
plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond
to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.
2

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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)(1).

1

granted summary judgment under the Eleventh Amendment immunity; and (3) as to the
excessive force claim, genuine issues of material fact are present and that summary judgment
should be denied for this reason. Further, the Magistrate Judge opines that qualified
immunity is inappropriate because the facts are in dispute and the matter should therefore be
tried to a jury.
The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The parties were notified of their right
to file objections to the Report and Recommendation and the defendants have timely objected
to all aspects of the Report and Recommendation adverse to them.
After carefully reviewing the objections, and conducting the required de novo review,
the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge in every respect. Accordingly, all objections are
overruled. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is granted as to the
defendants in their official capacities and denied as to the defendants in their individual
capacities. The claims remaining in this case against the defendants in their individual
capacities shall be tried before a jury during the May/June 2013 term of court, with jury
selection set for May 7, 2013.
In accordance with the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court hereby
appoints Lexington attorney Amanda Pittman to represent the plaintiff at trial. Ms.
Pittman’s duties shall be limited to attending the pretrial conference, selecting the jury, and
trying the case. In other words, discovery will not be re-opened because of the appointment
of counsel for the plaintiff.

2

The court will conduct a pretrial conference in Courtroom No. IV of the Matthew J.
Perry, Jr. Federal Courthouse, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina at 10:00 a.m.
on Tuesday, April 16, 2013. The Clerk is requested to send a copy of this order to Ms.
Pittman and also to the South Carolina Department of Corrections. Upon receipt of this
order, the SCDC is respectfully requested to have the plaintiff, Rackim Lavan Williams,
transported to the courthouse at 10:00 a.m. on April 16, 2013, for the pretrial conference.
Mr. Williams is advised by way of this order that he should come to the pretrial
conference prepared to provide to Ms. Pittman the identity of all witnesses that he wishes
to have called on his behalf at the trial. He shall also bring with him all documentation he
intends to introduce by way of evidence at the trial.
Jury selection will take place at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2013. If the court does
not have a large number of additional juries to draw, it is the court’s intention to begin the
trial of this case immediately following jury selection on May 7.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 20, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3