Wilde v. Scaturo et al

Filing 97

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Report and Recommedation is accepted and Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Defendant Swan's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 36 , is GRANTED; the Summary Judgme nt Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 70 , is GRANTED; and the case is DISMISSED as to Defendant Hickman pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Additionally, Defendants Magill and Wilson's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 45 , and Defendant Hickman's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 52 , are TERMINATED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 9/5/2017. (gpre, ) Modified on 9/6/2017 to edit text (gpre, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON / GREENWOOD DIVISION

Case No. 8:16-cv-02318-TLW-JDA

William J. Wilde,
PLAINTIFF
v.
Holly Scaturo, Director; Mrs. Kimberly
Poholchuk, B.M.C. Program Director; Ms.
Cynthia Helff, B.M.C.; Dr. Kelly Gothard; Dr.
Gordon Brown, Psychologist; Dr. Rozanna
Tross, Psychologist; Dr. Amy Swan,
Psychologist; Ms. Marie Gehle, Evaluator; Dr.
Donna Schwartz-Watts, Psychologist; Capt.
Frank Abney, P.S.O. Supervisor; Mr. Galen
Sanders, Chief Nursing Administrator; Mr.
Harold Alexander, R.N.; Ms. Charlene
Hickman, R.N.; Dr. John Magill, Director of
Department of Mental Health; Mr. Alan
Wilson, Attorney General,

ORDER

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff William J. Wilde, who is in the custody of the South Carolina Department of
Mental Health (SCDMH) and proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that Defendants violated his Constitutional rights in various ways in connection with the
administration of the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), S.C. Code §§ 44-4810 through 44-48-170. ECF No. 1. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by Magistrate Judge Austin, to whom this case was
assigned. ECF No. 90. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends: granting Defendant

1

Swan’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 36; granting the Summary Judgment Defendants’ 1 motion for
summary judgment, ECF No. 70; and dismissing the case as to Defendant Hickman pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Magistrate Judge further recommends that Defendants
Magill and Wilson’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 45, and Defendant Hickman’s motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 52, be terminated as moot. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, and Defendant Hickman
filed a reply. ECF Nos. 92, 94. This matter is now ripe for decision.
In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed de novo the R&R and
Plaintiff’s objections, which focus on his unsupported assertion that the defendants in this case are
not entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 92 at 3. After an appropriate review, the R&R is
ACCEPTED and Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Defendant Swan’s
motion to dismiss, ECF No. 36, is GRANTED; the Summary Judgment Defendants’ motion for

1

The “Summary Judgement Defendants” as defined in the R&R include: Abney, Alexander,
Brown, Gehle, Gothard, Helff, Magill, Poholchuk, Sanders, Scaturo, Schwartz-Watts, Tross, and
Wilson.
2

summary judgment, ECF No. 70, is GRANTED; and the case is DISMISSED as to Defendant
Hickman pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Additionally, Defendants Magill and
Wilson’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 45, and Defendant Hickman’s motion to dismiss, ECF No.
52, are TERMINATED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
September 5, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

3