Harris v. Mueller et al

Filing 52

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report (DE 47) and incorporates it here by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (DE 22) is denied as to Plaintiff's excessive force claim and granted on all remaining claims. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 1/7/2025. (agaz, )

IN TH E UNITE D STATE S DISTRICT COURT
F OR TH E DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BE AUF ORT DIVISION
Vin cen t H a r r is,
P la in t iff,
vs.
St eve Mu eller , P a u l Acker son , a n d
J oh n Lewis,
Defen da n t s.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Ca se No.: 9:23-cv-2539-J D-MH C

O R D E R AN D O P I N I O N

Th is m a t t er is befor e t h e Cou r t wit h t h e Repor t a n d Recom m en da t ion
(“Repor t ”) of Un it ed St a t es Ma gist r a t e J udge Molly H . Ch er r y (DE 47), m a de in
a ccor da n ce wit h 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) a n d Loca l Civil Ru le 73.02(B)(2) of t h e Dist r ict of
Sou t h Ca r olin a r ega r din g Defen da n t s St eve Mu eller , 1 P a u l Acker son , 2 a n d J oh n
Lewis’s 3 (collect ively “Defen da n t s”) Mot ion for Su m m a r y J u dgm en t (DE 22). 4

P la in t iff asser t s t h at Defen da nt Mueller is r espon sible by vir t u e of h is posit ion as
Sh er iff of Ch er okee Coun t y. (DE 1 at 2, 4.)
1

Th e cor r ect spellin g of t h is Defenda n t ÷s su r n am e is ”Aker son ,‘ not ”Acker son.‘ (S ee
DE 22-2 a t 2.)
2

P la in t iff r efer s t o Defenda n t Lewis as ”J oh n ‘ (See DE 1 a t 3); h owever , in h is Affida vit ,
Defenda n t Lewis ident ifies h is given n am e a s ”Tr ist a n.‘ (S ee DE 22-3 a t 2—3.)
3

Th e r ecom m enda t ion ha s n o pr esu m pt ive weigh t , a nd t h e r esponsibilit y for m akin g a
fin a l det er m in a t ion r em a in s wit h t h e Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict Cour t . S ee Ma th ews v. Weber ,
423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). Th e cour t is ch a r ged wit h m akin g a de n ovo det er m in a t ion of
t h ose por t ions of t h e Repor t a n d Recom m en dat ion t o wh ich specific object ion is m a de. Th e
cou r t m a y a ccept , r eject , or m odify, in wh ole or in par t , t h e r ecom m en da t ion m a de by t h e
m a gist r a t e ju dge or r ecom m it t he m a t t er wit h in st r uct ions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4

1

A. B a c k g r o u n d
Th e Repor t set s for t h t h e r eleva n t fa ct s a n d lega l st a n da r ds, wh ich t h e Cou r t
in cor por a t es wit h ou t a com plet e r ecit a t ion. In a n y even t , t h e Cou r t pr ovides t h is
su m m a r y a s a br ief ba ckgr ou n d.
P la in t iff, a pr et r ia l det a in ee a t t h e Ch er okee Cou n t y Det en t ion Cen t er
(“CCDC”), a sser t s t h a t on Decem ber 18, 2022, h e wa s a ppr oa ch ed by t wo CCDC
officer s,

specifica lly

Defen da n t s

Acker son

and

Lewis

(“Det en t ion

Cen t er

Defen da n t s”), r ega r din g a n in ciden t in wh ich h e wa s seen on ca m er a a llegedly
sm okin g m a r iju a n a . (DE 36-2, ¶ 2; DE 1, a t 7.) Th ough P la in t iff den ied sm okin g
m a r iju a n a , h e com plied wit h t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s’ or der s t o pa ck u p h is
belon gin gs t o m ove t o a differ en t cell in C-Ma x. (DE 36-2, ¶ 3.)
Accor din g t o P la in t iff, wh ile wa lkin g t o t h e n ew cell in C-Ma x, h e fell a n d h it
h is h ea d beca u se of a m edica l con dit ion —ort h ost a t ic h ypot en sion. (Id . ¶ 4; DE 35 a t
2.) P la in t iff st a t es t h a t h is m edica l con dit ion m a kes it difficu lt for h im t o st a n d on h is
own a n d t h a t h e wa s wea r in g a Det en t ion Cen t er -a ppr oved m edica l a ler t br a celet
st a t in g his m edica l con dit ion a n d t h a t h e wa s pr on e t o fa llin g. (DE 36-2, ¶ ¶ 4, 6.)
P la in t iff cou ld n ot get u p a n d st a n d on h is own a ft er h e fell. (Id . ¶ ¶ 4, 7.) Th e
Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s or der ed h im t o get u p, a n d P la in t iff expla in ed t h a t h e
cou ld n ot a n d n eeded h elp. (Id . ¶ 7.) H e cla im s t h a t t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s
disr ega r ded h is st a t em en t s a n d dr a gged h im t o a n d t h r ew h im in t h e n ew cell in CMa x wh en h e cou ld not get u p on his own . (Id . ¶ ¶ 4, 7.) P la in t iff a lso cla im s t ha t h e
t old t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s t h a t t h ey wer e h u r t in g h im du r in g t h e

2

in ciden t , bu t t h a t t h ey r espon ded, “we don ’t give a [f**k] a bou t you or you r m edica l
con dit ion .” (Id . ¶ 8.)
P la in t iff wa s t h en h ou sed in C-Ma x for a bou t fift een t o t wen t y da ys, a ft er
wh ich h e wa s m oved t o Delt a Un it , wh er e h e wa s “h ou sed on t h e t op t ier [,] for cin g
h im t o n a viga t e a high fligh t of m et a l a n d con cr et e st eps” wh ich h e cla im s im posed a
difficu lt y on h im du e t o h is m edica l con dit ion . (DE 1, a t 5–6.) P la in t iff a lso a sser t s h e
fell while u sin g t h e st a ir s som et im e du r in g h is h ou sin g in Delt a Un it . (DE 35, a t 4.)
P la in t iff cla im s t h a t t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s, kn owin g of h is disor der , fa iled
t o pr ovide h im a dequ a t e m edica l ca r e for h is disor der or for bein g dr a gged a n d t h r own
in t o a n ew cell. (DE 36-2, a t ¶ ¶ 5, 8, 10–11.) H e st a t es h e h a s developed a n xiet y a n d
su ffer s fr om em ot ion a l dist r ess beca u se of t h e in ciden t . (DE 1, a t 9.) P la in t iff r equ est s
m on et a r y da m a ges of $1 m illion per Defen da n t a n d r equ est s t h a t “a ll officer s in volved
be r elieved of t h eir du t ies.” (Id .)
On Apr il 22, 2024, Defen da n t s m oved for su m m a r y ju dgm en t on five gr ou n ds:
1) t h e a llega t ion s of H a r r is’s Com pla in t do n ot r ise t o t h e level of a con st it u t ion a l
depr iva t ion for den ia l of m edica l ca r e a n d/or deliber a t e in differ en ce; 2) H a r r is h a s n ot
su ffer ed a con st it u t ion a l depr iva t ion wit h refer en ce t o bein g pla ced in C-Ma x; 3) t h er e
is n o per son a l in volvem en t t o give rise t o a n y cla im a ga in st Sh er iff Mu eller ; 4) t h er e
is n o eviden ce t o est a blish su per visor y lia bilit y u n der Sect ion 1983; a n d 5)
Defen da n t s a r e en t it led t o qu a lified im m u nit y. (DE 22.)
On Apr il 24, 2024, u nder Rosebor o v. Ga r r ison , 528 F .2d 309 (4t h Cir . 1975),
t h e Ma gist r a t e J u dge a dvised H a r r is of t h e m ot ion for su m m a r y ju dgm en t pr ocedu r e

3

a n d t h e possible con sequ en ces if h e fa iled t o r espon d a dequ a t ely. (DE 23.) H a r r is
opposed t h e m ot ion (DE 36), a n d Defen da n t s r eplied (DE 40).
B . R e p o r t a n d R e c o m m e n d a t io n
On Novem ber 22, 2024, t h e Ma gist r a t e J u dge issu ed t h e Repor t r ecom m en din g
t h a t Defen da n t s’ m ot ion for su m m a r y ju dgm en t be gr a n t ed, in pa r t , a s t o h is
con st it u t ion a l depr iva t ion for den ia l of m edica l ca r e a n d/or deliber a t e in differ en ce, a
con st it u t ion a l depr iva t ion wit h r efer en ce t o bein g pla ced in C-Ma x, a ll cla im s a ga in st
Sh er iff Mu eller , a n d su per visor y lia bilit y u n der Sect ion 1983. (DE 47.) H owever , t h e
Repor t r ecom m en ded den ia l of su m m a r y ju dgm en t for H a r r is’s excessive for ce cla im
a n d a n y qu a lified im m u n it y defen se r ela t ed t o excessive for ce. (Id .) Th e Repor t fou n d
a s t o H a r r is’s cla im s a ga in st Sh er iff Mu eller :
Th e la w is clea r t h a t per son a l pa r t icipa t ion of a defen da n t is a n ecessa r y
elem en t of a § 1983 cla im a ga in st a gover n m en t em ployee in h is per son a l
ca pa cit y. S ee Willia m son , 912 F .3d a t 171; Wilcox, 877 F .3d a t 170.
P la in t iff h a s fa iled t o pr odu ce eviden ce est a blish in g Defen da n t
Mu eller ’s per son a l in volvem en t in a ct ion s r ela t ed t o deliber a t e
in differ en ce, excessive for ce, or ot h er con st it u t ion a l viola t ion s a sser t ed
by P la in t iff. Cf. E CF No. 36-2 (n ot m en t ion in g Mu eller in Affida vit ).
(DE 47 a t 6-7.)
As for H a r r is’s deliber a t e in differ en ce cla im , t h e Repor t foun d t h a t even
a ssu m in g P la in t iff’s or t h ost a t ic h yper t en sion or h is su scept ibilit y t o fa llin g
con st it u t es a ser iou s m edica l con dit ion m eet in g t h e fir st elem en t for a deliber a t e
in differ en ce cla im , Ha r r is h a s n ot est a blish ed t h e r em a in in g elem en t s, i.e., “t h a t (2)
t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s in t en t ion a lly, kn owin gly, or r ecklessly a ct ed or
fa iled t o a ct t o a ppr opr ia t ely a ddr ess t h e r isk t h a t or t h ost a t ic h yper t en sion or t h e

4

pr open sit y t o fa llin g posed; (3) t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s kn ew or sh ou ld h a ve
kn own (a ) t h a t P la in t iff h a d or t h ost a t ic h yper t en sion or t h e pr open sit y t o fa llin g a n d
(b) t h a t t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t ’s own a ct ion or in a ct ion posed a n
u n ju st ifia bly h igh r isk of h a r m ; a n d (4) a s a r esu lt , P la in t iff wa s h a r m ed.” (DE 47 a t
10-11.) Specifica lly, t h e Repor t st a t es:
To t h e ext en t P la in t iff is a sser t in g a cla im ba sed on la ck of m edica l
a t t en t ion a ft er his fa ll, fr om being dr a gged a n d t h r own in t o h is cell or
ot h er wise, see E CF No. 36-2 a t ¶ 11, P la in t iff h a s n ot dem on st r a t ed, or
even a lleged, wh a t m edica l ca r e h e n eeded or wa s en t it led t o h a ve t h a t
wa s den ied by t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s.[] To be su r e, P la in t iff
a ver s t h a t h e hit his h ea d wh en h e fell. S ee E CF No. 35 a t 2. H owever ,
P la in t iff’s fa ll, on it s own , does n ot dem on st r a t e a n y pa r t icu la r ized
h a r m , or in ju r y. F u r t h er , P la in t iff is u na ble t o dem on st r a t e t ha t t h e
fa ll, dr a gging, or r esu lt in g h a r m st em m ed fr om a la ck of m edica l
a t t en t ion by t h e Det en t ion Cen t er Defen da n t s. S ee S h or t, 87 F .4t h a t
611.
(Id . a t 12.) As for Defen da n t ’s h ou sin g in Delt a Unit , wh er e he wa s for ced t o u se
st a ir s even t h ou gh h is m edica l con dit ion s m a ke h im su scept ible t o fa llin g, t h e Repor t
st a t es:
P la in t iff h a s n ot sh own t h a t Defen da n t s ‘fa iled t o a ct t o a ppr opr ia t ely
a ddr ess t h e r isk t h a t t h e [pr open sit y t o fa llin g] posed’ r ega r din g h is
h ou sin g in t h e u pper t ier of Delt a Un it . S ee S h or t, 87 F .4t h a t 611.”
(Id .) F ir st , P la in t iff fa ils t o dem on st r a t e a n y per son a l in volvem en t by
Defen da n t s in t h e h ou sin g decision . S ee Willia m son , 912 F .3d a t 171
(r equ ir in g t h e officia ls’ own in dividu a l a ct ion s m u st viola t e t h e
Con st it u t ion in or der t o est a blish per son a l lia bilit y u n der § 1983).
P la in t iff does n ot a llege or sh ow t h a t a n y Defen da n t h a d a n y per son a l
r ole in m ovin g P la in t iff t o Delt a Un it . S ee E CF Nos. 1 a t 5 (st a t in g
P la in t iff wa s m oved t o Delt a Un it a ppr oxim a t ely fift een t o t went y da ys
a ft er bein g pla ced in C-Ma x Un it ); 35 a t 3 (r efer r in g t o t h e per son
for cin g h im t o u se st a ir s a s a n officer r a t h er t h a n a n a m ed Defenda n t ).

5

(Id .) On J u n e 10, 2024, P la in t iff object ed t o t h e Repor t . 5 (DE 49.)
C. Lega l St a n d a r d
To be a ct ion a ble, object ion s t o t h e Repor t a n d Recom m en da t ion m u st be
specific. F a ilu r e t o file specific object ion s con st it u t es a wa iver of a pa r t y’s r igh t t o
fu r t h er ju dicia l r eview, in clu din g a ppella t e r eview, if t h e r ecom m en da t ion is a ccept ed
by t h e dist r ict ju dge. S ee Un ited S ta tes v. S ch r on ce, 727 F .2d 91, 94 & n .4 (4t h Cir .
1984). “Th e Su pr em e Cou r t h a s expr essly uph eld t h e va lidit y of su ch a wa iver r u le,
expla inin g t h a t ‘t h e filin g of object ion s t o a m a gist r a t e’s r epor t en a bles t h e dist r ict
ju dge t o focu s a t t en t ion on t h ose issu es—fa ct u a l a n d lega l—t h a t a r e a t t h e h ea r t of
t h e pa r t ies’ dispu t e.’” Dia m on d v. Colon ia l Life & Accid en t In s. Co., 416 F .3d 310, 315
(2005) (cit in g Th om a s v. Ar n , 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (em ph a sis a dded)). In t h e
a bsen ce of specific object ion s t o t h e Repor t a n d Recom m en da t ion of t h e m a gist r a t e
ju dge, t h is Cou r t is n ot r equ ir ed t o give a n y expla n a t ion for a dopt in g t h e
r ecom m en da t ion . S ee Ca m by v. Da vis, 718 F .2d 198, 199 (4t h Cir. 1983).
D . P la in t iff’s O b je c t io n
H a r r is’s object ion cen t er s on h is deliber a t e in differ en ce cla im . H a r r is st a t es:
P la in t iff h a s su bm it t ed pr im a fa cie eviden ce in h is swor n Affida vit s
sh owin g t ha t h e wa s wea r in g a m edica l a ler t br a celet wh ich wa s in pla in
view of t h e defen da n t s. [I]t (sic) is t r u e t h a t t h e defen da n t s a r e n ot
h ea lt h ca r e pr ovider s or m edica l per son n el. H owever , a s Cou n t y
Det en t ion Cen t er em ployees, t h ey a r e r equ ir ed t o be t r a in ed in fir st a id
a n d fir st r espon der a ssist a n ce.

Th e Cou r t n ot es H a r r is pu r por t ed t o file a Su pplem ent a l Object ion on Decem ber 27,
2024. (DE 50.) H owever , t h is object ion is beyond t h e t im e for filin g a n object ion a n d H ar r is
did n ot seek lea ve t o su pplem ent h is object ion . Never t h eless, t h e Cou r t finds t ha t t h e
su pplem ent a l r espon se does n ot a ffect t he out com e of t h is Or der .
5

6

(DE 49 a t 1.) On ce t h e m ova n t h a s m a de t h is t h r esh old dem on st r a t ion , t o su r vive t h e
m ot ion for su m m a r y ju dgm en t , u n der Ru le 56(e), t h e n on m ovin g pa r t y m u st “go
beyon d t h e plea din gs a n d by h [is] own a ffida vit s, or by t h e ‘deposit ion s, a n swer s t o
in t er r oga t or ies, a n d a dm ission s on file,’ design a t e ‘specific fa ct s sh owin g t h a t t h er e
is a gen u in e issu e for t r ia l.’” Celotex Cor p. v. Ca tr ett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Un der
t h is st a n da r d, “t h e m er e exist en ce of a scin t illa of eviden ce” in fa vor of t h e n on m ova n t ’s posit ion is in su fficien t t o wit hst a n d t h e su m m a r y ju dgm en t m ot ion .
An d er son v. Liber ty Lobby, In c., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). “Likewise, con clu sor y
a llega t ion s or den ia ls, wit h ou t m or e, a re in su fficien t t o pr eclu de gr a n t in g t h e
su m m a r y ju dgm en t m ot ion .” Wa i Ma n Tom v. H osp. Ven tu r es LLC, 980 F .3d 1027,
1037 (4 t h Cir . 2020).
H er e, P la in t iff cla im s t h a t h e wa s dia gn osed wit h or t h ost a t ic h ypot en sion , bu t
h e pr esen t s n o m edica l r ecor d t o t h a t effect . H e h a s a lso pr esen t ed n o eviden ce t o
in dica t e t h a t t h er e wa s a n y in dica t ed t r ea t m en t dir ect ed by a ph ysicia n t h a t wa s n ot
pr ovided. H e sim ply r efer en ces t h a t h e wa s wea r in g a br a celet t ha t sa id h e wa s a fa ll
r isk. Th a t does n ot give r ise t o a n in fer en ce t h a t t h e P la in t iff wa s dia gn osed wit h a n y
ser iou s m edica l con dit ion a n d/or t h a t t h e P la in t iff h a d been dia gn osed wit h
or t h ost a t ic h ypot en sion . P la in t iff a lso pr esen t s n o eviden ce a n d poin t s t o n o fa ct fr om
wh ich it ca n be in fer r ed t h a t h e h a d a n d/or su ffer ed a n y ot h er ph ysica l in ju r y a n d/or
m edica l con dit ion t h a t m a n da t ed t r ea t m ent , a n d t h u s n ot h in g t h a t wou ld a m ou n t t o

7

a ser iou s m edica l n eed. Accor din gly, H a r r is’s object ion does n ot sa t isfy Ru le 56(e). 6
Th u s, t h e Cou r t over r u les H a r r is’s object ion .
E . C o n c lu s ion
Accor din gly, a ft er a t h or ou gh r eview of t h e Repor t a n d Recom m en da t ion a n d
t h e r ecor d in t h is ca se, t h e Cou r t a dopt s t h e Repor t (DE 47) a n d in cor por a t es it h er e
by r efer en ce.
It is, t h er efor e, O R D E R E D t h a t Defen da n t s’ m ot ion for su m m a r y ju dgm en t
(DE 22) is den ied a s t o P la in t iff’s excessive for ce cla im a n d gr a n t ed on a ll r em a in in g
cla im s.
IT IS SO OR DE R ED.

F lor en ce, Sou t h Ca r olin a
J a n u a r y 7, 2025

N O T I C E O F R I G H T T O AP P E AL
Th e pa r t ies a r e h er eby n ot ified of t h e r igh t t o a ppea l t h is or der wit h in t h ir t y
(30) da ys fr om t h is da t e u n der Ru les 3 a n d 4 of t h e F eder a l Ru les of Appella t e
P r ocedu r e.

Sin ce H a r r is’s cla im for deliber a t e in differ en ce fa ils as a m a t t er of la w, t h e Cour t
declin es t o addr ess t h e qu a lified im m u n it y object ion as it r ela t es t o t h is cla im .
6

8