Valbert v. South Carolina Department of Mental Health et al

Filing 50

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying 44 Motion to Strike ; granting 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/20/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Brian Ellis Valbert,
Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Department of
Mental Health, Gaylan Sanders,
Harold Alexander, and Dr. Peggy
Wadman,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No.: 9:12-cv-01973-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Brian Ellis Valbert, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is civilly committed to the South
Carolina Department of Mental Health’s Sexually Violent Predator Program (“the program”). The
above-captioned Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 33. The matter is now before the Court after the
issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow
Marchant.1 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment and dismiss Plaintiff’s action.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff, who is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator, filed this action in July
2012, alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in not placing him
in a single room and not allowing him to see a urologist. Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a
condition called “paruresis,” in which he is unable to urinate in the presence of others. He claims
1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling.
1

that Defendants’ deliberate indifference caused him injury and seeks both damages and injunctive
relief.2 On January 29, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, providing the
affidavits of Defendants Peggy C. Wadman, M.D., ECF No. 33-2, and Galen Sanders, R.N, ECF
No. 33-6. Plaintiff was put on notice, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), of the consequences of summary judgment, and Plaintiff filed a response. Plaintiff, however,
provided no evidence in support of his response.3 The Magistrate Judge issued his R&R on March
12, 2013, recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, finding that
the undisputed evidence required summary judgment in favor of Defendants as a matter of law.
R&R, ECF No. 42. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R on March 25, 2013. Pl.’s Objs.,
ECF No. 45. Defendants replied to Plaintiff’s objections on April 16, 2013. Defs.’ Reply, ECF No.
49.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may

2

Because the facts are adequately stated in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, which the Court adopts,
the Court need not elaborate on them further.
3
After the Magistrate Judge issued his R&R, Plaintiff filed a “motion to strike” Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, argument that Defendants’ disclosure of his health information was in
violation of federal and South Carolina law. See ECF No. 44. Plaintiff’s motion is denied. First,
the motion is untimely. The motion is more appropriately a response to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, and his response was due March 7, 2013. He did not file his motion to strike
until March 25, at the earliest. Second, the remedy he seeks—to strike Defendants’ motion
entirely—is overbroad and inappropriate in light of Rule 56(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Third, Plaintiff fails to point the Court to any specific law barring the admission of the
evidence he challenges.
2

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The right to de novo review may be waived by the failure to file timely objections. Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court need not conduct a de novo review when a
party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific
error in the [M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, in the absence
of objections to the R&R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). However, in the absence of
objections, the Court must “ ‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.’ ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the undisputed facts show an absence of “serious
medical problems” and of “any mistreatment or ‘substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment, practice or standards.’ ” R&R 13. Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge concludes, “to the
extent Plaintiff’s complaint could be construed as asserting a claim under the [American’s With
Disabilities Act (“ADA”)]”—that Plaintiff his shown no evidence of discrimination on the basis of
a disability. Id. at 14.4

Plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation are not entirely clear.

However, it appears Plaintiff contends in his objections the Magistrate Judge erred in (1) deferring
too much to Defendants’ opinions, (2) accepting Defendants’ false statements, (3) presuming that
no ADA violation was committed by Defendants, (4) considering privileged information, and (5)
4

The Magistrate Judge also recommending dismissing the Defendant Department of Mental Health
on the basis of sovereign immunity, and Plaintiff does not object to the recommendation.
3

misunderstanding Plaintiff’s claims. Pl.’s Objs. 1-10. Despite these objections, the Court, after a de
novo review, finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Plaintiff never provided the Court with any evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact that
Defendants “depart[ed] from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to
demonstrate that [they] actually did not base [their] decision[s] on such a judgment.” Youngberg v
Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323 (1982); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c). As the evidence shows, Plaintiff never
complained about his condition until February 10, 2009—months after he was committed. Aff. of
Galen Sanders 3. When he did first complain, he was placed in a room by himself for “[s]everal
months.” Id. Once he received a new roommate, he complained again on September 11, 2009. Id.
Approximately, two years later, after more complaints (which were routinely addressed by program
doctors), Plaintiff was finally referred to a urologist. Aff. of Peggy C. Wadman 3. Because a
“bladder scan showed elevated residual urine,” Plaintiff received medication, and his condition
improved over the course of three follow-up visits. Id. The urologist only recommended that
Plaintiff receive a private room “if possible” and later, on May 10, 2010, recommended only a
private toilet. Id. at 3-4. Defendants followed the urologist’s recommendations by giving Plaintiff a
private room and a privacy card to place over his window while he used the bathroom. Aff. of
Galen Sanders 6. Defendant Wadman, the medical director for the program, attested that (1) she is
unaware of Plaintiff ever having difficulty urinating with a roommate present and that (2) Plaintiff
“has not had any blood in his urine or any panic attacks or sleep problems as a result of not being in
a private room.” Aff. of Peggy C. Wadman 4. She also noted that Plaintiff, at the time of her
affidavit, had been housed in a single occupant room for “several months.” Id.
Even after drawing all inferences in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, as this Court must,
the Court finds that the only evidence in the record shows that Defendants were not deliberately

4

indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical condition.

Nor does any evidence show Plaintiff was

discriminated against because of his condition. Despite several years of Plaintiff’s complaints, there
is no evidence of any sufficiently serious medical condition to imply that Defendants acted
unreasonably or in a manner “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). The only evidence in the record shows that
Defendants ultimately accommodated Plaintiff’s request to see a urologist and that Defendants
followed the urologist’s recommendations, including providing him his own room. These decisions
of medical professionals are presumptively valid, and Plaintiff offers no evidence to rebut them.
Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is proper, and
Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including the motion for summary
judgment, the R&R, objections to the R&R, and applicable law. For the reasons stated above and
by the Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 44) is
DENIED, that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED and that
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 20, 2013

5