United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Russell A. Brantley, Plaintiff,
James Staten, Lt. Hettich, and Captain Gallum, Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge
time of the underlying complaint, Plaintiff Russell A.
Brantley was a pretrial detainee housed at the Aiken County
Detention Center (ACDC). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed a complaint on March 27, 2017,
asserting that he fell out of a top bunk at ACDC and suffered
a separated collarbone. Plaintiff brings this action against
Defendant James Staten, a third-party medical provider at
ACDC, and Defendants Lt. Hettich and Captain Gallam,
employees of the Aiken County Sheriff's Department who
are assigned to ACDC. Plaintiff contends he was denied
adequate medical care in violation of his constitutional
rights. Thus, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Thomas E. Rogers, III for
matter is before the court on motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendants Gallam and Hettich on October 10, 2017,
as well as motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant
Staten on October 10, 2017. By order filed October 11, 2018,
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 no response
to the motions for summary judgment. Defendant Staten filed a
reply in support of his motion for summary judgment on
February 23, 2018.
before the court is a motion to dismiss for lack of
prosecution filed by Defendants Gallam and Hettich on January
26, 2018. A second Roseboro order was issued on
January 29, 2018. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to
the motion to dismiss on February 16, 2018.
26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he determined that Defendants are
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and that any claims
by Plaintiff for prospective relief are moot, as Plaintiff no
longer is housed at ACDC. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Defendants' motions for summary judgment
be granted, and that Defendants Hettich and Gallam's
motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution be denied. No party
objected 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. 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. 2005).
court has thoroughly reviewed the record and concurs in the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court further
notes that, as set out in detail in the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff was examined by medical personnel,
transported to the emergency room, was prescribed medications
for pain, and eventually referred to orthopedic surgery.
Claims that detention center officials were deliberately
indifferent to the medical needs of a pretrial detainee are
evaluated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment rather than under the Eighth Amendment's
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See
Martin v. Gentile, 849 F.2d 863, 870 (4th Cir. 1988).
The due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as
great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a
convicted prisoner. Id. To determine whether a
prison official has violated a prisoner's Eighth
Amendment rights, a court must determine “whether the
prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of
mind (subjective component) and whether the deprivation
suffered or injury inflicted on the inmate was sufficiently
serious (objective component).” Williams v.
Benjamin, 77 F.3d. 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996).
The court concludes that there is no evidence to support a
reasons stated herein and in the Report and Recommendation,
Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 57,
58) are granted. Defendants Hettich and
Gallam's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (ECF
No. 64) is denied.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Properly identified as Captain