United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, recommending denial of Defendant
Inmate Services Corporation's ("ISC") motion
for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court adopts the report and recommendation and denies
ISC's motion for summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge thoroughly recounted the facts and
allegations of this case in the Report and Recommendation,
which are briefly summarized here. (See Dkt. No. 105
at 2-10.) Plaintiff Michael Dykes suffers from severe
diabetes. He was arrested on June 18, 2012 for a bad check
charge. He has testified that his foot was then so sore that
he could not walk properly and that the arresting officers
"put their arms under [his] arms so [he] could walk,
because [he] couldn't put any pressure on [his]
foot." (Dkt. No. 91-2 at 35-37.) He has also stated that
when he went into custody at the Hampton County Detention
Center, he told them about his health condition and that he
had an appointment the next day to see a surgeon about his
foot, but that he was not given insulin until a week after
his arrest and was not seen by a physician until two weeks
after his arrest. Mr. Dykes alleges that when he was seen by
a physician, he was told his foot was gangrenous but the only
treatment offered was a tube of antibiotic cream.
5, 2012, Mr. Dykes left the Hampton County Detention Center
in the custody of ISC, for a three-day van ride to Missouri.
Mr. Dykes alleges ISC stored his insulin on the dashboard of
the van, rendering it useless because insulin requires
refrigeration. He alleges that he was then held in the back
of the van in chains for three days. On the third day, he
passed out. ISC did not summon medical assistance or
transport Mr. Dykes to a hospital. Instead, ISC allegedly
asked another inmate present in the van to provide emergency
medical assistance. The van stopped at a truck stop to buy
orange juice, which the other inmate force-fed into the
unconscious Mr. Dykes. The van then continued to its
Mr. Dykes eventually received proper medical attention, a
series of amputations were required. Ultimately, Mr.
Dykes's legs were both amputated. Plaintiffs allege those
amputations are "a direct and proximate result of the
Defendant corporation's failure to provide medical care,
treatment and proper medication." (Dkt. No. 1 -1 ¶
13.) Plaintiffs allege three causes of action against ISC:
(a) "negligence/gross negligence, " (b) violation
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (c) loss of consortium, and
they seek, inter alia, actual and punitive damages.
(Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim
is a deliberate indifference to medical needs claim under the
23, 2016, ISC moved for summary judgment. On January 23,
2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended denial of ISC's
motion. ISC did not object to the Magistrate Judge's
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 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 Report and
Recommendation 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. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific
objections, "a district court need not conduct a de novo
review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation, " see Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins, Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198
(4th Cir. 1983).
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, Hasp. v. Am. Natl 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 Transp, Inc., 190
F.3d 285, 287 (4th Cir, 1999)). III. Discussion ISC
seeks summary judgment on each of Plaintiffs ...