United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge.
Manigault ("Plaintiff), a prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, brought this action against
Lieutenant Albert Housey, Corporal Ryan Grant, and Officer
Dustin Crosby (collectively "Defendants") claiming
a violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the Court
on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 64.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
about November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action alleging
Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. ECF No. 1 at 2. In addition,
Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 2, which
was granted on December 4, 2015, by Magistrate Judge Paige J.
Gossett, ECF No. 8. On August 8, 2016, Defendants' filed a
motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 64. Because Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the Magistrate Judge entered an order
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of the motion and
of the need for him to file an adequate response. ECF No. 66.
On or about August 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
ECF No. 70. On September 16, 2016, Defendants filed a
reply. ECF No. 76. On October 28, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (the
"Report"), recommending Defendants' motion for
summary judgment be granted as to Defendants Grant and Crosby
and denied as to Defendant Housey. ECF No. 91. The Report set
forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and
standards without a recitation.
parties were advised of their right to object to the Report,
which was entered on the docket on October 28, 2016. ECF Nos.
91, 93. The Magistrate Judge gave the parties until November
17, 2016, to file objections. Id. Plaintiff and
Defendant Housey timely submitted objections to the Report.
ECF Nos. 96, 97. Defendants Grant and Crosby timely responded
to Plaintiffs objections. ECF No. 98. Thus, this matter is ripe
for the Court's review.
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 to which specific objection is made,
and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge,
this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Because multiple parties have
raised objections to the Report, each party's objections
will be addressed separately.
objects to summary judgment in favor of Defendants Grant and
Crosby because he feels that they "should be held
responsible for their actions that took place on May 12,
2014, " because they "violated his 8th Constitution
Rights and Laws of the United State[s]." ECF No. 96 at
1. Plaintiff did not object to the facts as stated by the
Magistrate Judge in the Report.
Defendant Grant, Plaintiff contends that the headlock was
illegal because it is not taught in the academy for the South
Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC") or the
headlock was unnecessarily prolonged because another officer
was assisting to resolve the situation. Id. at 1-2.
Grant responds that Plaintiff provides no support that
headlocks are not taught at SCDC, which is insufficient to
create an issue of fact, and "[a]ll uses of force are
judged under the Whitley factors, so the Plaintiffs
argument that a headlock is per se excessive force
fails." ECF No. 98 at 1-2. With regard to the duration
of the headlock, Defendant Grant responds that all evidence
in the record supports the conclusion that he placed
Plaintiff "in a headlock to gain control of a dangerous
situation" and the factors under Whitley
support his use of force. Id. at 2-4.
Grant is correct that Plaintiff cannot rely on a bald
assertion that the headlock was illegal. Thus, without
admissible evidence for support, Plaintiff has failed to show
a genuine dispute as to a material fact regarding his
objection to the legal use of a headlock.
verified complaint, Plaintiff alleged that
"[s]econds" after he pushed Defendant Housey down,
Defendant Grant grabbed him and placed him in a headlock. ECF
No. 1 at 4. In addition, "[s]econds after that"
Defendant Crosby arrived and grabbed Plaintiffs legs.
Id. Then, "[a] matter of seconds after all of
that, [Defendant] Housey stands over the plaintiff and
commenced to punch Plaintiff." Id. Lastly,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Grant told Defendant Housey
to stop punching Plaintiff and Defendant Housey "snapped
back into Reality and gave Plaintiff one more punch to the
back of the head." Id. at 4-5.
Plaintiffs objection that the headlock was unnecessarily
prolonged is unavailing as, in Plaintiffs own view, the
encounter quickly progressed within seconds and is not
alleged to have lasted long. The fact that Plaintiffs legs
were being held by Defendant Crosby did not serve to
automatically nullify the need to restrain Plaintiffs torso.
Thus, the fact that another officer had arrived to assist in
resolving "the situation" did not mean Defendant
Grant was required to release his hold before Plaintiff was
placed in restraints. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Grant told Defendant Housey to stop his actions.
failed to specifically object to the Report's walkthrough
of the Whitley factors, and, instead argues in a
conclusory fashion that "[t]he headlock was not in
good-faith to maintain or restore discipline. It was used
maliciously and sadistically to cause physical harm."
ECF No. 96 at 2. Due to the discussion above, and the correct
analysis contained in the Report, Plaintiffs objection to the