United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
OPINION & ORDER
M. HERLONG, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 of the District of South Carolina. Dmitry Pronin
(“Pronin”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
brings this action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Defendants Charles Wright, Neal Urch, and L. Blackwell
(collectively “Defendants”), filed a motion for
summary judgment. In her Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge West recommends granting Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
Factual and Procedural History
is a federal prisoner currently serving a ten-year sentence
for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2113(a) and (d), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(A)(ii). United States v. Pronin, Cr. No.
1:11-33-LPS (D. Del. 2011). From June 27, 2016 to August 22,
2016, Pronin was housed at Spartanburg County Detention
Center (“SCDC”) on a writ of habeas corpus ad
testificandum. (Mot. Summ. J. 5, ECF No. 174-1.) Pronin
alleges that he experienced severe undernourishment while at
SCDC and that the three meals served each day contained less
than 2, 000 calories. (Am. Compl. 2, ECF No. 92.) Pronin
alleges that he weighed 165 pounds when he arrived at SCDC on
June 27, 2016, lost 27 pounds as a result of the food served
by SCDC, and weighed 138 pounds when he left SCDC on August
22, 2016. (Objs. Ex. 1 (V.S. Disputed Facts ¶ 1(a)), ECF
No. 199-1.) Pronin brings this action pursuant to § 1983
and submits that these events constitute deliberate
indifference to his health under the Eighth Amendment. (Am.
Compl., ECF No. 92.)
filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2017.
(Id., ECF No. 92.) Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment on September 28, 2018. (Mot. Summ. J., ECF
No. 174.) After receiving an extension, Pronin filed his
response in opposition on October 29, 2018. (Resp. Opp'n
Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 183.) Defendants filed their reply on
November 8, 2018. (Reply, ECF No. 184.) Pronin filed a sur
reply on November 15, 2018. (Sur Reply, ECF No. 185.) The
magistrate judge issued the Report and Recommendation on
April 2, 2019, and recommends granting Defendants' motion
for summary judgment because there is no genuine issue of
material fact as to Pronin's alleged weight loss at SCDC.
(R&R 4-5, ECF No. 193.) Pronin filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation on May 3, 2019.(Objs., ECF No.
199.) This matter is now ripe for review.
Discussion of the Law
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate only “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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In deciding whether a genuine issue of
material fact exists, the evidence of the non-moving party is
to be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn
in his favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, “[o]nly disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary
will not be counted.” Id. at 248.
litigant “cannot create a genuine issue of material
fact through mere speculation or the building of one
inference upon another.” Beale v. Hardy, 769
F.2d 213, 214 (4th Cir. 1985). “[W]here the record
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the non-moving party, disposition by summary
judgment is appropriate.” Monahan v. Cty. of
Chesterfield, Va., 95 F.3d 1263, 1265 (4th Cir. 1996)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he
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.” Ballenger v. N.C. Agric. Extension
Serv., 815 F.2d 1001, 1005 (4th Cir. 1987) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to
file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a
party's right to further judicial review, including
appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the
district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of
specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give
any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Upon
review, the court finds that many of Pronin's objections
are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of
the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, or
merely restate his claims. However, the court was able to
glean one specific objection. Pronin objects to the
magistrate judge's conclusion that there is no genuine
issue of material fact regarding Pronin's alleged injury.
(Objs. 12, ECF No. 199.)
submits that he has provided sufficient evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact regarding his alleged weight
loss at SCDC. (Id., ECF No. 199.) Although Pronin
disputes Defendants' records that he weighed 138 pounds
upon his arrival to SCDC, he has failed to provide any
evidence, apart from his own assertions, that he weighed 165
pounds upon his arrival to SCDC. In fact, to the contrary,
one of Pronin's grievances submitted while he was housed
at SCDC states, “I AM UNDERWEIGT [sic] - 6' 1, AND
ONLY 138 POUNDS AT THE INTAKE[.]” (Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A
(Freeman Aff. Ex. B (July 17, 2016 Grievance at 68)), ECF No.
174-2.) Thus, Pronin acknowledged that he weighed 138 pounds
when he arrived at SCDC. Further, Pronin has only provided
evidence regarding his weight while in federal custody in
2015, prior to his arrival at SCDC, and his weight on
September 1, 2016, after his transfer from SCDC. (Resp.
Opp'n Mot. Summ. J. Attach. 3 (Supp. Docs. 12-15), ECF
No. 183-3.) Accordingly, Pronin's assertion that he lost
27 pounds during his confinement at SCDC is unsupported by
the evidence. Thus, Pronin's objection is without merit.
after a thorough review of the magistrate judge's Report
and the record in this case, the court adopts the Report and