United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint and
Supplement. ECF Nos. 1, 21. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.),
this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and
30, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 38.
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition. ECF No. 46. On
September 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. ECF No.
51. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures
and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the
serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report.
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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a
specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). The Court will review the Report 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 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.” (citation omitted)).
Magistrate Judge provides a thorough recitation of the facts
and the relevant legal standards, which the Court
incorporates by reference. Plaintiff brings this action
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”),
28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, 1346(b), and Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Magistrate Judge recommends granting
Defendant's Motion with respect to both claims. The Court
will address Plaintiff's objections in turn.
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's FTCA
claim because federal prisoners cannot recover under the FTCA
for work-related injuries. She states that the Inmate
Accident Compensation Act (“IACA”), 18 U.S.C.
§ 4126, provides the exclusive remedy for
Plaintiff's injury and any claim for negligence resulting
from the injury. ECF No. 51. Plaintiff does not object to the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion, but instead states that he
attempted to raise a claim under the IACA in a supplemental
filing to the Court in August 2018. After a thorough review
of the record, the Court believes that Plaintiff is referring
to his Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. As
Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any reference to the
IACA, it appears this is a new claim raised in response to
the Motion to Dismiss. Such claims are generally not permitted.
See White v. Biomed. Labs., Inc., 807 F.Supp. 1212,
1216 (D.S.C. 1992). Accordingly, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff's FTCA claim.
Walker v. Reese, 364 Fed.Appx. 872, 876 (5th Cir.
2010) (“Because the IAC system is Walker's
exclusive remedy against the Government, the court lacks
jurisdiction to adjudicate his FTCA claim.”).
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of Plaintiff's
Bivens claims because he fails to specifically name
any individual staff members amenable to suit. ECF No. 51
(citing Randall v. United States, 95 F.3d 339, 345
(4th Cir. 1996) (“Any remedy under Bivens is
against federal officials individually, not the federal
government.”)). In hjis objections to the Report and
Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff
contends that he intended to name additional individuals in
his Complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff failed to file
a motion to amend his complaint. Accordingly, no individual
defendant has been named or served in this case; any claim
pursuant to Bivens should be dismissed.
based on the foregoing, the Court adopts the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
 is GRANTED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the ...