Carpenter v. Bragg et al

Filing 36

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 31 Report and Recommendation and grants 26 defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/1/2016. (gpre, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR¥CEi'vTD r:LERK'S OFFICE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

zO Ib ~JAR - I P 4: I 8

Colin Carpenter,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
M. Travis Bragg, William Dunbar, Millard )
Grant, I. Williams, Thompson,
)
United States of America,
)
)
Defendant.
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 31). For the reasons below, this Court adopts the R & R as the
order of the Court.

I. Background
Plaintiff Colin Carpenter, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se complaint containing claims
under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 ("FTCA"). Plaintiff
alleges that on March 7, 2014, he was placed into a cell with an inmate who expressed that he
did not want a cellmate and had previously assaulted another prisoner. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2). At
around 2:45 A.M. on March 10, 2014, Plaintiffs cellmate punched him several times while he
was in the top bunk. (Id 3).

Correctional officers then separated the two inmates, removing

Plaintiffs cell mate from the celL (Id) Plaintiff saw medical staff at 7:30 A.M., at which point
in time staff noted "contusion of face, scalp and neck except eye(s)." (Id). Plaintiffs pro se
complaint seeks declaratory judgment, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief
against "double-ceIling" inmates. (Dkt. No.1 at 7). He contends that (1) Defendants subjected
him to unnecessary risk by handcuffing him when they transferred him into his new cell, (2)

Defendants delayed his access to medical care, and (3) Defendants failed to protect him from his
cellmate.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for swnmary
jUdgment. (Dkt. No. 26). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.), the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R recommending that the court grant Defendants'
motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed no objections to the R & R.
II. Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, 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)(I). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
Where the 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," see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.

Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Camby v.

Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).
III. Discussion
As mentioned above, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent, wrongful, and
deliberately indifferent in their treatment of Plaintiff. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that (1)

2

prison staff sUbjected him to safety risks when he was handcuffed and transferred to a cell with
another prisoner on March 7, 2014, and (2) prison staff failed to protect him from the assault by
his cellmate on March 10, 2014, and (3) prison staff was deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs that arose from the March 10 assault by his cellmate. Because the Magistrate
Judge thoroughly addressed each of the claims, the Court provides only an overview of the
claims.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust their administrative
remedies before asserting claims in court. 42 U.S.c. § 1997e(a). In regard to his claim that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. (Dkt. No. 26-7 at 3). Accordingly, this claim must be dismissed.
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies regarding the claims that (1) prison
staff subjected him to safety risks when he was handcuffed and transferred to a cell with another
prisoner on March 7, 2014, and (2) prison staff failed to protect him from the assault by his
cellmate on March 10, 2014. However, he has failed to state a claim under the FTCA, and his
Bivens claims do not survive summary judgment.

The FTCA serves as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that allows plaintiffs to sue
the United States for damages caused by certain species of Government employee torts. See 28
U.S.C. § 1346(a). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent in assigning his cell and
failing to intervene, and the government contends that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over these claims due to the discretionary function exception to sovereign immunity. The Court
agrees with the government-the FTCA does not apply to "[a]ny claim ... based upon the
exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on
the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government." 28 U.S.c. § 2680(a).

3

Turning next to his Bivens claims, Plaintiff has failed establish that there is a genuine
issue of material fact that would give rise to a constitutional claim. He does not allege that
Defendants knew of a specific risk to his safety.

And although his complaint alleges that

Defendants Grant and Williams failed to intervene during his assault "for an [un]necessary and
prolonged period of time," Defendants Williams' and Grant's affidavits and Plaintiffs own
account of the incident show that the incident was brief and quickly addressed. (Compare Dkt.
No. 1-1 (noting that Defendants Grant and Williams had the inmate "cuff up" and removed him
from the cell "[s]hortly thereafter"), with 26-4 (noting that the second time inmate was ordered
to "submit to hand restraints" he complied), and 26-5 (same)).

With nothing more than

Plaintiffs conclusory allegations, there is nothing to support a claim for deliberate indifference.
And because there is no underlying constitutional violation, Plaintiffs claims for failure to train
and supervisor liability also fail as a matter of law. Young v. City ofMt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567,
579 (4th Cir. 2001).
IV. Conclusion

The Court has reviewed the R & R, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The
Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably and promptly summarized the factual and legal issues
and appropriately recommended that the action should be dismissed.

Therefore, the Court

ADOPTS the R & R as the order of this Court and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

(Dkt. No. 26).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gerge
United States Distric Court Judge
March ~, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina
4