Gaddy v. Ward et al

Filing 112

ORDER Adopting 107 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Defendants' 58 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and this action is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/18/14. (kmca)

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

Calvin L. Gaddy,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Robert Ward; Ann Hallman; Warden Larry
Cartledge; Amy Machann; and the Attorney
General’s Office,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 8:12-3549-JFA-JDA

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Calvin L. Gaddy, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that
the defendants violated his due process rights in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing
at the Perry Correctional Institution. He seeks injunctive relief and money damages.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation and opines that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment2 should be

1

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).
2

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.

1

granted. 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 plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and he has filed objections thereto. The court has conducted a de novo
review of the plaintiff’s objections and finds them to be duplicative of the claims in the
complaint. As such, the plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
As an initial matter, the Magistrate Judge suggests that because the plaintiff is no
longer incarcerated at the Perry Correctional Institution, plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief
are moot to the extent he seeks injunctive relief. This court agrees.
The Magistrate Judge opines that the defendants are immune from suit in their official
capacities pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The
Magistrate Judge also suggests that the plaintiff’s claims fail against defendants Ward,
Hallman, Cartledge, and the Attorney General’s Office because there is no doctrine of
respondeat superior in § 1983 claims.
With regard to defendant Machann and plaintiff’s disciplinary conviction, the
Magistrate Judge opines that such claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)
and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
Finally, in connection with plaintiff’s claims that the defendants failed to provide him
with appropriate medical care, the Magistrate Judge properly concludes that the defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

2

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and
Recommendation, and the plaintiff’s objections thereto, this court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct
principles of law. The Report is therefore adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58) is granted
and this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3