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. 40) recommending
the Court grant Defendant Pamela C. Derrick's motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the
Court, and the Court grants Defendant's motion for
Miles Earl Tudor, Jr. brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was in the
custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections
("SCDC") and housed at the Allendale Correctional
Institution ("Allendale"). Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Pamela C. Derrick, a registered nurse, denied him
basic medical care and acted with deliberate indifference
towards his medical needs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that on May 22, 2015, officers at Allendale called for
emergency medical care while Plaintiff was lying on the floor
in a housing unit. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant arrived, but failed to examine Plaintiff or provide
any medical care, and failed to notify the doctor.
(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that because of these
actions, he ultimately required lifesaving surgery and must
take blood thinners for the rest of his life. (Id.)
Defendant, in her motion, submitted an affidavit along with
Plaintiffs medical records that showed that on May 12, 2015,
Defendant responded to an emergency call from officers, and
examined Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 31-2 at 8.) Defendant left the
medical encounter open for Plaintiffs planned assessment with
Dr. Thomas Byrne the following day. (Id.) Over the
next week, Plaintiff repeatedly saw Dr. Byrne on May
13th, 15th, 18th,
20th. Dr. Byrne performed examinations, including
ordering labs, and ultimately prescribed a number of
medications, including an antibiotic. (Dkt. No. 31-3 at 8 -
10.) On May 21, 2015, Plaintiff was again seen for an
emergency, and was seen later the same day by Dr. Byrne.
(Id. at 11.) Dr. Byrne then transferred Plaintiff to
Allendale County Hospital, where he was diagnosed with an
ischemic bowel and thrombosis, and later transferred to
Palmetto Health Richland. (Id. at 4 - 5; 11 - 12.)
Derrick filed a motion for summary judgment on September 6,
2018. (Dkt. No. 31.) Plaintiff opposed the motion. (Dkt. No.
37.) The Magistrate Judge issued an R & R recommended
granting the motion. (Dkt. No. 40.) Plaintiff has not filed
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 to. 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 has not filed objections, and
therefore the R & R is reviewed for clear error.
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
for trial.'" Id. quoting First Nat'l Bank of
Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289 (1968)).