Dingle, Jr. v. Palmer et al

Filing 54

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Thus, the Court adopts the Report (DE 52) and incorporates it here by reference. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 42) is granted, and this case is dismissed. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 3/10/2025. (agaz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Henry O’Neal Dingle, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
John Palmer, Mrs. S. Burdette, Mr.
Wilkenson, & Mrs. Mickens,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 9:23-cv-6106-JD-MHC

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry (DE 52), made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of
South Carolina concerning Defendants John Palmer, Mrs. S. Burdette, Mr.
Wilkinson, 1 and Mrs. Nickens 2 (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary
Judgment (DE 42). 3

Plaintiff identifies the spelling of Mr. Wilkenson’s name with an “e,” while Mr.
Wilkinson has clarified in his Affidavit that his name is spelled with two “i”s. (DE 42-7.) The
Court refers to this Defendant as “Wilkinson.”
1

Although Plaintiff identifies this Defendant as “Mrs. Mickens” in the Complaint,
Defendants note that the proper spelling of this Defendant’s name is “Nickens.” (DE 42-1 at
1 n.1.) The Court refers to this Defendant as “Nickens.”
2

The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a
final determination remains with the United States District Court. See 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 Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
3

1

A. Background
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which the Court
incorporates without a complete recitation. In any event, the Court provides this
summary as a brief background.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendants in their individual and official capacities, alleging violations of
his civil rights while he was a state prisoner at the McCormick Correctional
Institution (“MCI”) of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). (DE
1 at 2–3, 6.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs and violated his Eighth Amendment rights through the unnecessary
wanton infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. (Id. at 4–11.) Plaintiff requests
“punitive damages in the amount of $85,000 and injunctive relief to be transferred to
Kirkland Correctional facility[.]” (Id. at 12.)
Plaintiff’s claims stem from an incident on August 14, 2023. (DE 29 at 1.)
Plaintiff asserts he was drying off in the right back shower of the Restricted Housing
Unit (“RHU”), arched his neck backward to dry off, and while doing so, debris fell
from the ceiling and landed in his left eye. (Id.) According to Plaintiff, it was then
that he noticed that the drywall in the ceiling of the shower was covered with mold.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges he wrote a Request to Staff Member (“RTSM”) to Defendant
John Palmer on August 17, 2023, three days after the incident, to inform him of his
eye injury and that there was mold in the showers and his dorm. (DE 29 at 1; DE 11 at 3.) Plaintiff states he was not given anything to help with his eye condition until

2

December 21, 2023, an hour before he was transferred to Broad River Correctional
Institution. (DE 29 at 2.)
On August 28, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
alleging: (1) Plaintiff has failed to show a constitutional deprivation sufficient for
recovery under § 1983; (2) Plaintiff has failed to show cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) Plaintiff has not stated a claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; (4) Defendants are entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity; and (5) to the extent there is sufficient evidence of
a constitutional violation, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (DE 42-1 at
10–25.)
On August 30, 2024, under Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
the Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the motion for summary judgment
procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond to the motion
adequately. (DE 44.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (DE 48) and additional
attachments. (DE 49, DE 50.)
B. Report and Recommendation
On December 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report recommending
that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (DE 52.) The Report
found insufficient evidence to create a material question of fact related to Plaintiff’s
constitutional claims for deliberate indifference or cruel and unusual punishment
against any individual Defendant. (Id. at 24.) Plaintiff has not objected to the Report.

3

C. Legal Standard
In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is
not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court must “only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
D. Conclusion
Because Plaintiff has not objected, after a thorough review of the Report and
Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error on the
face of the record. Thus, the Court adopts the Report (DE 52) and incorporates it here
by reference.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(DE 42) is granted, and this case is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
March 10, 2025

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order within thirty
(30) days from this date under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
4