United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
Ricky M. Rodgers, Plaintiff,
FNU Glenn, Health Services Administrator, et al., Defendants.
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 summary judgment for
Defendants and denial of Plaintiffs motion to amend the
complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts
in part and declines to adopt in part the Report and
Recommendation, grants summary judgment for Defendants, and
denies the motion to amend.
12, 2014, a food service cart pushed by an inmate at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Estill, South Carolina
("FCI-EstiH") struck Plaintiff Ricky Rodgers, also
an inmate at FCI-Estill. Plaintiff alleges the cart ran over
his right ankle, foot, and leg. He further alleges that
Defendant Hood, a correctional officer, witnessed the event
but failed to report it and ignored his request for medical
attention. Another correctional officer allegedly took
Plaintiff to a medical evaluation. Plaintiff was examined,
given ibuprofen and crutches, and x-rays were requested. Four
days later, on June 16, 2014, the requested x-rays were
taken. The x-rays revealed "no fractures or
abnormalities." (Dkt. No. 25-3 ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs
crutches were then taken from him and his "medical idle
status ended." (Id.)
alleges that he should have been provided surgery, and that
over the following months he regularly complained of pain but
his complaints were improperly documented. On July 27, 2014,
he initiated an informal complaint resolution
("BP-8") requesting a copy of the accident report,
medical report and "any other information." He
received no response and did not pursue any subsequent prison
administrative remedy. Instead, on January 5, 2015, Plaintiff
filed a Federal Tort Claim Act ("FTCA") claim form
with the Bureau of Prison's southeast regional office. On
July 1, 2015, the Bureau of Prisons mailed an FTCA
determination letter to Plaintiff, denying his claim because
he sustained no injury caused by a government employee's
negligent or wrongful act or omission. (Dkt. No. 25-10.)
December 30, 2015-within six months of the final
administrative denial of his FTCA claim-Plaintiff timely
filed the present action. Plaintiff alleges negligence and
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and seeks
compensatory damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"),
18 U.S.C. § 1346(b). He names as Defendants (1) Health
Services Administrator Glenn, (2) Clinical Director Ivan
Negron, (3) Nurse Albert Crosby, (4) EMT Jeffrey Eiben, (5)
Physician Assistant Garcia, (6) Correctional Officer Hood,
and (7) the United States of America. Plaintiff sues the
named individuals due to actions they took while employed by
the Bureau of Prisons and he alleges their actions were taken
within the course of their government employment.
31, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss, or in the alternative,
for summary judgment. (Dkt. No 25.) On February 2, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge recommended summary judgment for Defendants.
(Dkt. No. 56.) Defendant filed no objections.
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. 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.
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. CSXTransp, Inc., 190 F.3d
285, 287 (4th Cir. 1999)).