United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Bryan Harwell United States District Judge.
Olandio Ray Workman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he
was a pretrial detainee confined at the Greenville County
Detention Center. The matter is before the Court for
consideration of Plaintiff's objections to the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald, who recommends granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. See ECF
Nos. 45 & 55.
of the R & R
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material
fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cty., Md.,
789 F.3d 407, 413 (4th Cir. 2015); see Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”). “A party asserting that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion
by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record
. . .; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not
establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or
that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). The facts and
inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
Reyazuddin, 789 F.3d at 413, but the Court
“cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility
determinations.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of
the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 569 (4th Cir. 2015).
“the mere existence of some alleged factual
dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of
material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). “A dispute of
material fact is ‘genuine' if sufficient evidence
favoring the non-moving party exists for the trier of fact to
return a verdict for that party.” Seastrunk v.
United States, 25 F.Supp.3d 812, 814 (D.S.C. 2014). A
fact is “material” if proof of its existence or
nonexistence would affect disposition of the case under the
applicable law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
summary judgment stage, “the moving party must
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Once the moving party has met his burden, the nonmoving party
must come forward with some evidence beyond the mere
allegations contained in the pleadings to show that there is
a genuine issue for trial.” Baber v. Hosp. Corp. of
Am., 977 F.2d 872, 874-75 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal
citation omitted). Summary judgment is not warranted unless,
“from the totality of the evidence, including
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
affidavits, the [C]ourt believes no genuine issue of material
fact exists for trial and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Whiteman v.
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 729 F.3d 381, 385 (4th
Cir. 2013); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
brings this § 1983 action against Defendants-officials
at the Greenville County Detention Center
(“GCDC”)-alleging they violated his
constitutional rights in various respects.Specifically,
Plaintiff appears to allege violations of his First and Fifth
Amendment rights (pertaining to his legal mail, copies, and
retaliatory conduct by GCDC officials) and his Fourteenth
Amendment rights (concerning administration of his mental
health medication). See ECF No. 1 (unverified
complaint). Defendants have filed a motion for summary
judgment. See ECF No. 30. The Magistrate Judge
recommends granting Defendants' motion because (1)
Plaintiff provides nothing but his unsworn allegations to
refute Defendants' evidence, (2) Plaintiff fails to
establish a supervisory liability claim, and (3) Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff fails to
show they violated his constitutional rights. R & R at
Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R,
see ECF No. 55, the Court concludes summary judgment
is appropriate because there are no genuine issues of
material fact. As the Magistrate Judge recognizes, Plaintiff
relies solely upon the unsworn allegations in his complaint
and has presented no evidence refuting that submitted by
Defendants.See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248
(“[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for
summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
(internal quotation marks and ellipsis
omitted)). Moreover, Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity because Plaintiff has not presented any
evidence establishing a constitutional
violation.See Thompson v. Commonwealth of
Virginia, 878 F.3d 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2017) (“To
overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary
judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make
out a violation of a constitutional right . . . .”);
Baber, 977 F.2d at 874-75 (“Once the ...