United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER AND OPINION
Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge
Antonio Kinloch is an inmate in custody of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC). He currently is housed at
Lee Correctional Institution (LCI) in Bishopville, South
Carolina. On January 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint in
the Court of Common Pleas for Dorchester County, South
Carolina, asserting claims for deprivation of his
constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff also asserts various state law causes of action. On
February 18, 2015, Defendants removed the case to this court.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pretrial handling.
matter currently is subject to a second amended complaint
filed September 7, 2016, which named as Defendants Sgt.
Kelvin Myers, Assistant Warden Fred Thompson, Investigator
Mr. Trey, N.P.-Ms Holcome, M.H.-Ms. Joyner, M.H.-Ms. Harris,
Warden C. Anthony, RN-Robinson, Nurse-Ms. K. Scott, Warden
Mr. Cartlige, Dr. Charlotte Thompson, Officer Ms. Smith,
Warden Reynolds, and Nurse Enloe. Defendants are employed by
or medical staff associated with LCI or Plaintiff's prior
custody terms at Lieber Correctional Institution in
Ridgeville, South Carolina, and Perry Correctional
Institution in Pelzer, South Carolina.
Thompson filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14,
2016. By order filed November 14, 2016, pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment
procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to
respond adequately. Plaintiff filed responses in opposition
to Defendant Thompson's motion on December 1, 2016, and
December 2, 2016.
December 28, 2016, Defendant Anthony filed a motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment.
A second Roseboro order was issued on December 29,
2016. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on January 11,
January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion asking the
Judge to stop the defendants from sending me Back to Dr.
Charlotte's hospital for care and treatment.”
Defendants Anthony, Cartlige, Enloe, Harris, Holcome, Joyner,
Myers, Reynolds, and Thompson filed a response in opposition
to Plaintiff's motion on January 16, 2017, to which
Plaintiff filed a reply on January 25, 2017.
February 16, 2017, Defendants Cartlige, Enloe, Harris,
Holcome, Joyner, Myers, Reynolds, and Thompson filed a motion
to dismiss, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. A
third Roseboro order was issued on February 17,
2017. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to
Defendants' motion on March 20, 2017, to which Defendants
filed a reply on March 21, 2017, and Plaintiff filed a
surreply on March 31, 2017.
27, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation wherein she recommended that Defendant
Thompson's motion for summary judgment be granted. The
Magistrate Judge further recommended that Defendant
Anthony's motion for summary judgment be granted. As to
the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Myers,
Thompson, Holcome, Joyner, Harris, Cartlige, Reynolds, and
Enloe, the Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment
be granted as to all Defendants with the exception of an
excessive force claim against Defendant Myers. Finally, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the court deny
Plaintiff's motion that he not be sent to “Dr.
Charlotte's Hospital” and that Defendants Trey,
Robinson, Scott, and Smith be dismissed pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because they have not been served with the
Myers filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on
August 4, 2017. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation on August 14, 2017, and August 22, 2017.
Defendant Thompson filed a Reply to Plaintiff's
objections on September 7, 2017.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270
(1976). This 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. This court
is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of
the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have
been filed. Id. In the absence of a timely filed
objection, 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.” Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
facts are thoroughly summarized in the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.
Defendant Thompson's Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 116)
Thompson performed surgery on Plaintiff's eyes in 2004.
Plaintiff contends that his eyes looked worse after the
surgery and that he was disfigured. The Magistrate Judge
determined that any claim against Defendant Thompson should
have been brought within three years from the date of
treatment, or three years from the date of discovery, as
mandated by S.C. Code § 15-3-545(a). However, Plaintiff
did not bring an action against Defendant Thompson until
2015, eleven years after his surgeries.
does not dispute the Magistrate Judge's conclusion, but
states that he was unaware of the limitations period. As a
general proposition, ignorance of the law, even for an
incarcerated pro se complainant, does not excuse prompt
filing. Rodgers v. Angelone, 113 F.Supp.2d 922, 931
n.8 (E.D. Va. 2000) (quoting Fisher v. Johnson, 174
F.3d 710, 714-15 (5th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff
further contends that at the time he was dealing with mental
and physical health issues, and that the court should allow
his claims to ...