United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Lisco D. Jeffcoat, Plaintiff,
Capt. Carpenter, Lt, Hamby, Sgt. Luten, Sgt. Edens, Dr. James Dorn, and Nurse White, Defendants.
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.
59), recommending that the motions for summary judgment filed
by Defendants be granted (Dkt. Nos. 41, 46). For the reasons
stated below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of
the Court, grants Defendants' motions to dismiss.
is a diabetic inmate who is currently housed at at the Alvin
S. Glenn Detention Center. Plaintiff filed this this pro
se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that Defendants violated his rights due to medical
indifference based on events that occurred while he was
incarcerated at Anderson City Jail, (See Dkt. No.
17-3 at 2 ("Not receiving proper medical attention and
medication being handled improperly")).
asserts that that on June 8, 2015, a bottle of insulin that
was specifically ordered for him a week before could not be
located. (Dkt. No. 17-3 at 3). Plaintiff asserts that an
officer found a months-old bottle of insulin that Plaintiff
had previously used and provided that to Plaintiff instead of
the recently ordered bottle of insulin. When Plaintiff took
the allegedly old insulin, he began to feel dizzy and
9, 2015, an officer informed Plaintiff that the recently
ordered bottle of insulin had been found "in the
BIOHAZARD bucket [("sharps container")] that is
[used for] needles and trash." Plaintiff alleges that he
was given this bottle and told to take his insulin. Plaintiff
complied, and when he checked his blood sugar level, it was
351. When he checked again at 8:30 p.m. that night, his blood
sugar level had risen to 451. (Id.).
was transferred to a holding cell to wait for a nurse, and
when he was informed that a nurse was not coming, Plaintiff
alleges that he asked to speak to Defendant Luten. After
informing Defendant Luten that he felt dizzy, sick, and
nauseated, Plaintiff alleges that she responded by
sarcastically telling him to have a good night. Plaintiff
also claims that he requested to be taken to the hospital
multiple times on June 9, 2015. (Id.).
10, 2015 at 5:30 a.m., Plaintiffs blood sugar was 198. Around
10:00 a.m., Plaintiff went to the nurse's office and his
blood sugar readings were 454 and 471. When he asked again if
he could be taken to the hospital, he was informed that his
condition had to be worse. (Id. at 4).
2:00 p.m., Plaintiff was taken to the hospital. His blood
sugar level was 434, and he received fluids for dehydration
and insulin for his high blood sugar levels.
alleges that while he was in the hospital, that the doctor
told him that the insulin the jail provided him was "not
strong enough" and that Plaintiff should be receiving
the type of insulin he took prior to being incarcerated.
Plaintiff alleges that when he informed the jail doctor about
the hospital doctor's recommendations, he was told that
the other types of insulins "were expensive and [the
jail] did not want to get stuck with the medicines if
[Plaintiff] were to leave the city jail."
asserts that his blood sugar "still runs high to this
day" and that he has not been able to speak with
Defendants Carpenter, Edens, or Hamby about the incident,
despite multiple requests. (Id.).
filed motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 41 and 46),
which included affidavits by Defendants White and Dorn,
medical professionals at the jail. Plaintiff filed a response
in opposition to the two motions for summary judgment on June
22, 2016 (Dkt. No. 56), and on August 22, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued an R & R recommending that the
Court grant both motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 59).
Plaintiff filed objections to the R & R on September 1,
2016. (Dkt. No. 61).
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." 28 U.S.C. § 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 ...