Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilder v. James

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

January 8, 2018

Samuel A. Wilder, #258295, Plaintiff,
v.
Tarcia L. James, in her individual capacity as Nurse at McCormick Correctional Institution; Kellie L. Brewer, in her individual capacity as Nurse at McCormick Correctional Institution; and Asia Few, in her individual capacity as Correctional Officer at McCormick Correctional Institution, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         The Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. This matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 36). For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned recommends granting Defendants' motion.

         Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate for consideration.

         Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on or about April 29, 2016. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) On March 17, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 36.) By order filed March 17, 2017, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the Plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. (Dkt. No. 37.) On or about May 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend, as well as a Response in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 48; Dkt. No. 49.) On May 22, 2017, the undersigned issued the following text order:

TEXT ORDER granting 48 Motion to Amend/Correct Caption. In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff states that he seeks an “order amending the caption to state that the Defendants are sued in their individual capacity.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 1 of 4.) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Caption (Dkt. No. 48) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall change the caption to read as follows: Tarcia L. James, in her individual capacity as Nurse at McCormick Correctional Institution; Kellie L. Brewer, in her individual capacity as Nurse at McCormick Correctional Institution; and Asia Few, in her individual capacity as Correctional Officer at McCormick Correctional Institution. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

(Dkt. No. 34.) Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to their Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff subsequently filed a Sur-Reply. (Dkt. No. 52; Dkt. No. 53.)

         FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at McCormick Correctional Institution (“MCI”) of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), brings the instant action against two nurses and one correctional officer at MCI. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.)[1] Plaintiff alleges that on March 21, 2013, he “started shaking, ” so he asked Officer Few if he could go to the infirmary. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5 of 19.) According to Plaintiff, Officer Few told Plaintiff to “go ahead” to the infirmary as “she cleared it already.” (Id.) He alleges, however, that once he got to the infirmary, Defendant Nurse James “with an inflamed voice and erratic disposition expelled [him] from the medical infirmary, ” even though Plaintiff told Nurse James that he had “the shakes.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 12 of 19.)

         Plaintiff alleges Defendant Nurse Brewer received a phone call from Officer Few that “Plaintiff had the shakes and was coming to the medical infirmary for treatment.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6 of 19.) Plaintiff alleges as follows (verbatim):

Nurse Kellie L. Brewer violated the Constitution when acted . . . with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical need, Nurse Brewer actually admitted she received a phone call from Ofc. Asia Few about Plaintiff serious medical need, and she said, that she may have said send him up but she was doing the pill line, which is not an excuse to do nothing when an emergency care phone call comes to her and she knows Plaintiff was coming for emergency treatment and she did not treat his serious medical need herself, or make a report that Plaintiff was coming to medical infirmary for emergency treatment causing to Plaintiff to passing-out and waking-up from the floor in pain and bleeding from his left arm and his shoulder had a discomfort.

(Dkt. No. 1 at 8 of 19.)

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendant James “violated the Constitution when she acted with deliberate[] indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical need” because when Plaintiff came to the infirmary, “she did not act reasonably[ but] expelled Plaintiff with an inflame[d] voice and erratic disposition stating no one called her or told her Plaintiff was coming.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 9-10 of 19.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant James “did not consult the officer on duty in the medical infirmary about Plaintiff coming to [the] medical infirmary, she did not lodge in the computer her assessment of Plaintiff nor did she even examine Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 10 of 19.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant James “did . . . nothing even though Plaintiff told her that he had the shakes.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 10 of 19.)

         Plaintiff contends Officer Few “acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical need” when she “saw Plaintiff's shaking and determined it was a serious medical need” and “sent Plaintiff to medical” but “failed to follow-up on Plaintiff and assure that Plaintiff was received and treated for his serious medical need.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7 of 19.) Plaintiff also contends Officer Few violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights “by not providing an incident report to Plaintiff and not providing an incident report to the medical infirmary.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 7 of 19.)

         Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' actions “caus[ed] . . . Plaintiff [to] pass[]-out and wak[e]-up from the floor in pain and bleeding from his left arm and his shoulder had a discomfort.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6 of 19.) In the “Relief” section of his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he seeks a declaration that the Defendants' “acts and omissions . . . violated Plaintiff's rights under the Constitution.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 12 of 19.) He also seeks compensatory and punitive damages. (Dkt. No. 1 at 12 of 19.)

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment “shall” be granted “if the movant 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). “Facts are ‘material' when they might affect the outcome of the case, and a ‘genuine issue' exists when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” The News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth., 597 F.3d 570, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “‘the nonmoving party's evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.