United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill 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 that Defendants'
motion for summary judgment be granted. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
was incarcerated at Evans Correctional Institution of the
South Carolina Department of Corrections on September 22,
2015, when he asserts that as he was taking the stairs to his
room, he fell and broke three ribs on his right side. He
claims he has a "medical profile" indicates that he
should not climb or lift anything over ten pounds, but
Defendants nevertheless placed him in a housing unit that
required him to walk down stairs to access his bed. He also
claims that using stairs caused his left knee to swell.
Plaintiff filed this action on June 20, 2016, alleging
Defendants placed Plaintiff in improper housing based on his
medical profile in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On June
29, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended summary judgment
for Defendants. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report
Report and Recommendation
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 then on moving party."
Health South 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. CSX Transp., Inc., 190
F.3d 285, 287 (4th Cir. 1999)).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of
state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
The present complaint, which alleges failure to provide
appropriate medical care or accommodations, is properly
construed as a claim of deliberate indifference to medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A deliberate
indifference claim requires an inmate to establish (1) a
sufficiently serious deprivation occurred, resulting "in
the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities, " and (2) that the prison official had a
sufficiently culpable state of mind. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
Magistrate Judge recommends summary judgment for Defendants
because Plaintiff has produced no evidence that a serious
deprivation of medical care or accommodations has occurred.
The Court agrees. Plaintiff has not even stated what
condition prevents him from using stairs. Medical records
show that while Plaintiff has a history of reporting back,
neck, and knee issues, medical personnel have found nothing
wrong with Plaintiffs back, neck, or knee and believed
Plaintiff was malingering. Further, there is no evidence
Plaintiff suffered broken ribs on September 22, 2015. Because
there is no evidence Plaintiff has ...