Covington v. Scotland Memorial Hospital, Inc. et al
ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/22/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT, COl),R1,!:· ,
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROL'lNA'~' .',. .
Z9ib AUG 23 A II): 50
Scotland Memorial Hospital, Inc., and
Scotland Health Care System,
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No.7), recommending that Plaintiffs case be dismissed without prejudice
and without issuance and service of process (Dkt. No.7). For the reasons stated below, the Court
ADOPTS the R & R.
On June 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants. (Dkt. No.1).
Plaintiff alleges on February 15, 2010, the Plaintiff was a patient at a facility operated by
Defendant. (/d) After receiving medical care and while waiting to be discharged, Plaintiff asserts
an armed attacker entered the premise and shot him. (Id.) Plaintiff claims the Defendants were
negligent because (l) they had a duty to ensure the premises were reasonably safe, (2) they failed
to exercise reasonable care to employ security measures to ensure Plaintiff was safe while on the
premises, and (3) their negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries. (/d)
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. 261,270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate."
§ 636(b)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made. Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 3lO, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1»;
accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Under South Carolina law, a personal injury claim must be initiated within three years
"after the person knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that he had
a cause of action." S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-3-530(5), 15-3-535. On February 15, 20lO, Plaintiff's
statute of limitations began to run. Therefore, the three year statute of limitation period expired
on February 15,2013. 1 Plaintiff did not commence suit on the Defendants prior to the expiration
of the statute of limitations as provided by the South Carolina Code. Thus, the Plaintiff's case is
subject to dismissal.
For the reasons stated above the Court ADOPTS the R & R and DISMISSES the case
without prejudice. (Okt. No.7).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The equitable tolling doctrine does not apply in this case. Equitable tolling will typically apply
in cases where a litigant is prevented from commencing a suit due to an extraordinary event
beyond his control. Hooper v. Ebenezer Senior Servs. & Rehab. Ctr., 386 S.c. 108, 116 (2009).
United States District Court Judge
August 1-'2...,- 2016
Charleston, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?