United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Richard Mark Gergel, United States District Court Judge.
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation ("R & R") of the Magistrate
Judge. (Dkt. No. 79). For the reasons below, this Court
adopts the R & R and grants in part and denies in part
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 62).
Plaintiff-then an inmate at Lee Correctional
Institute-alleges that on May 25, 2012, at approximately 5:00
p.m., he refused a directive from Defendants Brayboy, June,
Burroughs, Jenkins, and Davis to back up to the food flap in
his cell so that he could be restrained for a cell search.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 4-5). Defendant Brayboy sprayed Plaintiff with
chemical munitions, and Defendant Burroughs urged Plaintiff
to comply with their instructions because Defendant Burroughs
knew Plaintiff "was sick." (Id. at 5).
When Defendant Brayboy asked what Defendant Burroughs meant,
Defendant Burroughs notified him that Plaintiff had recently
returned from surgery, had sutures in his abdomen, and was
experiencing physical difficulties. (Id.). Defendant
Brayboy sprayed Plaintiff several additional times with
chemical munitions, and Defendants Brayboy, June, and D.
Cain, and unnamed others entered into his cell, handcuffed
him, and kicked and stomped him from several directions while
he was handcuffed. (Id.).
further alleges that Defendant Brayboy directed the other
Defendants to drag him from his cell to an outside recreation
area, where he was stripped, searched, and returned to his
cell naked, (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff alleged that
Defendant June clubbed him in the groin, and that Defendant
Brayboy directed other Defendants to leave him in a puddle of
chemical munitions that was on the cell floor. (Id.
claims that he was unable to move or cry out for help while
he lay on the cell floor with the chemical munitions burning
his body. He alleges that Defendants Dixon, Brayboy, June, D.
Cain, Hickman, McBride, Barr, Redmond, Finnley, Macaulay,
King, Bowman, Bells, Atkinson, and Burroughs observed him
while he was unresponsive and unmoving, but did nothing to
ensure that he received medical attention for about an hour
and a half. (Id. at 8)
approximately 6:25 p.m., Plaintiff was placed in a
wheelchair, seen by LCI medical staff, and then transported
to the emergency room. (Id. at 7). When he was
released from the emergency room, Plaintiff received
discharge papers that stated that he had been treated for
physical assault and was informed that he would be sore for
several days. (Id.)
Plaintiff returned to this cell around 3:30 a.m., he
discovered that his mattress had been removed from his cell.
Plaintiff asked Defendant Ramsey to provide him with a
mattress and allow him to take a shower to wash off the
chemical munitions. Defendant Ramsey refused both requests.
Over the next few days, Defendants Bowman, R. Cain, and
Johnson also allegedly refused Plaintiffs requests for a
mattress and a shower.
filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that Defendants (1) used excessive force
on Plaintiff by kicking, dragging, and clubbing him while he
was in restraints; (2) were deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiffs medical needs; and (3) subjected Plaintiff to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement when they refused
to provide him with a mattress and a shower.
filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt, No. 62), and the Magistrate
Judge issued a R & R recommending that the Court grant
the motion for summary judgment in part and deny it in part.
Defendants filed timely objections regarding the excessive
force, deliberate indifference, and conditions of confinement
claims (Dkt. No. 84), and Plaintiff did not object to the R
Report and Reccomendation
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may
"accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
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 ...