United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
RICHARD MARK GERGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, recommending summary judgment for
Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts
the Report and Recommendation in part and declines to adopt
it in part, and grants Defendants' motions for summary
judgment in part and denies them in part without prejudice.
Jerome Antonio Haggwood is a civil detainee in the custody of
the South Carolina Department of Mental Health
("SCDMH"). Plaintiff is held in the Sexually
Violent Predator Treatment Program ("SVPTP"), which
is housed in the Edisto and Congaree units of the Broad River
Correctional Institution ("Broad River"). The SCDMH
"retains all control, care, and treatment aspects inside
the Edisto and Congaree units, including internal guards,
routine matinenance, and sanitation. [The South Carolina
Department of Corrections] provides outside security, meals,
laundry services, and chaplain services." (Defs.'
Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 1-2, Feb. 15, 2016, Dkt. No, 28-1.)
Defendant Robert Stevenson was the Warden of Broad River; the
other Defendants (the "SVPTP Defendants") are SCDMH
officials who supervise the SVPTP at Broad River.
filed the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
August 13, 2015, alleging deprivation of his constitutional
rights due to his conditions of confinement, deliberate
indifference to his medical needs, racial discrimination, and
the requirement that he wear a yellow jumpsuit whenever he is
transported in public. His conditions of confinement in the
SVPTP are allegedly unconstitutional because of corporal
punishment, double bunking practices that place him in
physical danger, deliberately contaminated food, and mold,
mildew, and asbestos in his living areas. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, and compensatory and
February 15, 2016, Defendants moved for summary judgment as
to all claims. Warden Stevenson filed a separate motion for
summary judgment that expressly joined in the SVPTP
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate
Judge recommended granting Defendants' motions for
summary judgment on June 27, 2016. Plaintiff timely mailed
his objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 14,
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
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 (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 of the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
proper objection is made to a particular issue, "a
district court is required to consider all arguments directed
to that issue, regardless of whether they were raised before
the magistrate." United States v. George, 971
F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th Cir. 1992). However, "[t]he
district court's decision whether to consider additional
evidence is committed to its discretion, and any refusal will
be reviewed for abuse." Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d
170, 183 & n.9 (4th Cir. 2002). "[A]ttempts to
introduce new evidence after the magistrate judge has acted
are disfavored, " though the district court may allow it
"when a party offers sufficient reasons for so
doing." Caldwell v. Jackson, 831 F.Supp.2d 911,
914 (M.D. N.C. 2010) (listing cases).
judgment is appropriate if a party "shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact" and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In other words, summary judgment should
be granted "only when it is clear that there is no
dispute concerning either the facts of the controversy or the
inferences to be drawn from those facts." Pulliam
Inv. Co. v. Cameo Props., 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir.
1987). "In determining whether a genuine issue has been
raised, the court must construe all inferences and
ambiguities in favor of the nonmoving party."
HealthSouth Rehab. Hosp. v. Am. Nat'l Red Cross,
101 F.3d 1005, 1008 (4th Cir. 1996). The party seeking
summary judgment shoulders the initial burden of
demonstrating to the court that there is no genuine issue of
material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986).
the moving party has made this threshold demonstration, the
non-moving party, to survive the motion for summary judgment,
may not rest on the allegations averred in his pleadings.
Id. at 324. Rather, the non-moving party must
demonstrate that specific, material facts exist that give
rise to a genuine issue. Id. Under this standard,
"[c]onclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice,
nor does a 'mere scintilla of evidence'" in
support of the non-moving party's case. Thompson v.
Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir.
2002) (quoting Phillips v. CSX Tramp., Inc., 190
F.3d 285, 287 (4th Cir. 1999)).
committed mental patients retain a liberty interest in
conditions of reasonable care and safety and in reasonably
nonrestrictive confinement conditions. Youngberg v.
Romeo,457 U.S. 307, 324 (1982). Due process requires
that the conditions and duration of confinement bear some
reasonable relation to the purpose for which persons are
committed. See Seling v. Young,531 U.S. 250, 265
(2001); Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324. "A civilly
committed individual under the [Sexually Violent Predator
Act] most closely resembles the custody status of a pre-trial
detainee." Treece v. McGill, Civ. No.
3:08-3909-DCN-JRM, 2010 WL 3781695, at *4 (D.S.C. Sep. 21,
2010). A pretrial detainee's § 1983 claims are
evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the
Eighth Amendment, which is used to evaluate conditions of
confinement for those convicted of crimes. See City of
Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp.,463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983).
However, "[t]he due process rights of a pretrial
detainee are at least as great as the [E]ighth [A]mendment
protections available to the convicted prisoner, "
Martin v. Gentile,849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th Cir.
1988), and so conditions that would violate the Eighth