United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge
the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R &
R") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 56) recommending
the Court grant Defendants Drake, Daniels and Van
Sickle's (the "Federal Defendants") motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 28), and grant Defendant Keyes' motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. No. 48). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court adopts in part and declines to adopt in part the R
& R, adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
and the Court grants the Defendants' motions for summary
judgment (Dkt. Nos. 28, 48).
Court adopts the relevant facts as outlined in the R & R.
(Dkt. No. 56 at 1 - 6.)Plaintiff filed this 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and Bivens action when he was in pre-trial
detention at the Lexington County Detention Center
("LCDC"). Plaintiff Budden alleges that he was
injured by ATF agents when he was arrested during a scheduled
visit with his probation officer. (Dkt. No. 1 at 9.) Further,
while in pretrial detention at LCDC, Plaintiff alleges that
he was denied medical attention and that Defendant Keyes, a
sergeant at LCDC, ultimately placed him in lock up in
retaliation for requesting medical care. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff ultimately received an x-ray and ultrasound at
LCDC. (Id. at 10 - 11.) Plaintiff was transferred to
Federal Correctional Institution - Butner ("FCI
Butner") on October 3, 2017, for a psychiatric study,
where Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Van Sickle, a nurse at
FCI Butner, and Defendant Daniels, the Assistant
Administrator of Health Services, were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs and did not provide adequate
care for his medical conditions, which included lymphoma,
back pain, and a blistering rash all over his body.
(Id. at 10 - 12.) Plaintiff also names Beth Drake as
a Defendant, an Assistant United States Attorney, who was
allegedly involved in his transfer to FCI Butner.
(Id. at 11.) At FCI Butner, Plaintiff was seen by
medical providers, including Defendant Van Sickle and a
doctor, on multiple occasions from October 4, 2017, through
November 29, 2017, and received testing and treatment
including a blood draw, CT Scan, and a prescription for his
rash. (Dkt. Nos. 28-2; 58-1.) Plaintiff was transferred out
of FCI Butner on December 4, 2017, when the psychiatric study
concluded. (Dkt. No. 28-1.)
Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative for summary judgment, on August 30, 2018. (Dkt.
No. 28.) Defendant Keyes, the sole state defendant, filed a
motion for summary judgment on November 8, 2018. (Dkt. No.
48.) Plaintiff opposes both motions. (Dkt. Nos. 43, 53.) On
February 7, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an R & R
which recommended granting both motions. (Dkt. No. 56.)
Plaintiff filed objections. (Dkt. No. 58.)
Pro Se Pleadings
Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se
litigants to allow the development of a potentially
meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319
(1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The
requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege
facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the
Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Social
Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court
that has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a
final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The 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 must make
a de novo determination of those portions of the R
& R Plaintiff specifically objects. Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). Where Plaintiff fails to file any specific
objections, "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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation omitted). "Moreover, in the
absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation." Wilson v. S.C. Dept of Corr.,
~No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG, 2015 WL 1124701, at *1 (D.S.C.
Mar. 12, 2015). See also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff filed objections, and the
R & R is therefore reviewed de novo.
prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must
demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of any material
fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party seeking summary
judgment has the burden of identifying the portions of the
"pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, any
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). The Court will construe all inferences and
ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving
party. US. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655
(1962). The existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in
support of the non-moving party's position is
insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252
(1986). However, an issue of material fact is genuine if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict in favor of the non-movant. Id. at 257.
the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its
opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts."
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "In the language of the Rule,
the nonmoving party must come forward with "specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Id. at 587. "Where the record taken as a whole
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
non-moving party, there is no 'genuine issue ...