United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER AND OPINION
MARGARET B. SEYMOUR SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Scott Rudolph Welch is a pretrial detainee at the J. Reuben
Long Detention Center (JRLDC) in Conway, South Carolina.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
complaint on February 10, 2017, amended March 20, 2017,
against Defendants Joey Johnson, Deputy Director of JRLDC;
and Melissa Van Duser, Beverly Giraldi, Jane Tyler, and Karen
Wright, who are nurses at the JRLDC. Plaintiff alleges that
he witnessed the nurses at the JRLDC administer shots and
change bandages in a common area utilizing the same tables
where detainees eat their meals. Plaintiff brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional
conditions of confinement and seeking injunctive relief and
compensatory and punitive damages. 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 Kevin
F. McDonald for pretrial handling.
matter is before the court on motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendants Van Duser, Beverly Giraldi, Tyler, and
Wright on May 22, 2017, Also on May 22, 2017, Defendant
Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 23, 2017,
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 a joint
response to the motions for summary judgment on June 1, 2017.
Defendant Johnson filed a reply to Plaintiff's response
on June 8, 2017. Defendants Van Duser, Giraldi, Tyler, and
Wright filed a reply to Plaintiff's response on June 9,
2017. Plaintiff filed a joint surreply as to both replies on
June 16, 2017.
Magistrate Judge issued a Report of Magistrate Judge on
December 18, 2017. Relying on Strickler v. Waters,
989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993), the
Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff had neither
alleged he had been subjected to the alleged unsanitary
conditions, or that prison officials had been deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff's complaints. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants' motions for
summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff filed no objections to
the Report and Recommendation.
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.
court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs
in the Report of Magistrate Judge and incorporates it herein
by reference. Defendants' motions for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 56, 57) are granted.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Defendants admit that medical staff
had used tables in the common area as alleged by Plaintiff,
but that, because of Plaintiff's complaints, they no
longer use the common area. See Affidavit of Melissa
Van Duser, ¶ 6 (ECF No. 51-1); Affidavit of Major Joe
Johnson, ¶ 15 (ECF No. 52-1).
 The Magistrate Judge construed the
complaint as also asserting a cause of action of deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. The Magistrate
Judge noted in his Report of Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff
clarified he was not denied medical care at JRLDC, but he was
trying to get across the point that “changing bandages
and giving shots on the table we eat at for all of our meals
is wrong, both morally and hygienically.” ECF No. 73,
1. In any event, the Magistrate Judge reviewed
Plaintiff's medical claims and determined that Plaintiff
failed to show deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need. See Hill v. ...