United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Haynesworth (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, brought this action against Correct Care
Recovery Solutions, (“Correct Care”), South
Carolina Department of Mental Health (“DMH”),
SvpTp, C. Kunkle; G. Arnold; M. McDuffie; NFN
Anderson; T. Jones; C. Goodwin; NFN Eugeniano; NFN McGriffin;
C. Jacome; and Timothy J. Budz (collectively
“Defendants”) claiming violation of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. ECF No. 1-1. Currently before the court
are Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 69), DMH's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 90),
and the Correct Care Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 91). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, the Magistrate Judge entered an order pursuant to
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
advising him of the importance of Defendants' summary
judgment motions and the need to file an adequate response.
ECF No. 93. All three motions have been fully briefed by the
parties. See ECF Nos. 89, 92, 95, 97, 98, 103.
October 30, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending Defendants' motions for
summary judgment be granted and Plaintiff's motion
denied. ECF No. 117. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties
of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to
the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do
so. All parties have filed objections, replies to objections,
and two sur-replies. See ECF Nos. 120, 121, 122, 123, 124,
128, 129. This matter is ripe for the court's review.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report to which specific objection is made,
and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.'”) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff's
constitutional claims, as his Due Process rights were not
violated and he has failed to establish a serious deprivation
of basic human need as required to prevail on his cruel and
unusual punishment claim. ECF No. 117. The Report also
recommends the court decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims of
negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Id. at 12-13.
asserts several objections to the Report. First, Plaintiff
notes he filed this lawsuit in state court, and it was
removed to this court by Defendants. ECF No. 120 at 1. Plaintiff
explains the removal standard, then argues his Amended
Complaint “did clarify that 1st Amendment was really
under the South Carolina Constitution as such there is no
basis for this court to exercise Jurisdiction as there is no
Federal Question Subject Matter Jurisdiction.”
Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff also argues a substantive
point: he believes the phone system would automatically
disconnect when a three-way call was initiated, and therefore
he would have been unable to place a three-way call and
should not have been punished for doing so. Id. at
3-4. He requests remand to “Richland County
Court.” Id. at 4.
DMH also objects to the Report, arguing the state law claims
should be dismissed instead of remanded to state court. ECF
No. 121. It also argues the alleged violation of Due Process
should be analyzed under Youngberg v. Romero, 457
U.S. 307 (1982), but should still be dismissed. Id.
Correct Care Defendants replied to Plaintiff's
objections, arguing the court has jurisdiction over all of
Plaintiff's claims despite Plaintiff's arguments he
did not invoke federal jurisdiction. ECF No. 122 at 2. They
further argue Plaintiff failed to present evidence Defendants
violated his constitutional rights. Id. at 3. In
addition, the Correct Care Defendants filed a reply to
DMH's objections, agreeing the state law claims should be
dismissed instead of remanded. ECF No. 123.
DMH also filed a reply to Plaintiff's objections, arguing
his objections are baseless because it is clear this court
has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 124. In
addition, it argues Plaintiff's due process rights were
satisfied, as the Report found, regardless of whether
Plaintiff was on a three-way call. Id. at 4-5.
filed a sur-reply to both replies. ECF Nos. 128, 129.
Plaintiff argues the Correct Care Defendants did not timely
file their objections, so they should not be
considered. ECF No. 128. He also discusses Eleventh
Amendment Immunity, and requests the matter be remanded to
state court. Id. Plaintiff argues Defendants moved
for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity,
which was substantially similar to grounds raised in previous
motions, and so should be denied based on the “law of
the case doctrine.” ECF No. 129.
is a civilly and involuntarily committed patient of the
Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program
(“SCPTP”), formerly operated by DMH and currently
contracted to ...