United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment. ECF No. 186. Plaintiff filed Responses in
Opposition, a letter, and CDs and DVDs. ECF Nos. 190, 191,
192. 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 Kaymani D. West for pre-trial
proceedings and a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”). On March 7, 2019, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. ECF No. 195.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. ECF No. 198.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
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)).
claims stem from his time as an inmate at the Alvin S. Glenn
Detention Center (“the Detention Center”). He
alleges that, after his conviction, he slipped and fell on
the wet floor when a housing officer told him to jump over
the water. He contends he suffered injuries from the fall.
Several defendants and causes of action have already been
dismissed in this case.
remaining claims include allegations that the architects
improperly designed the Detention Center in a way that
permitted flooding and failed to include adequate drains or
slip-proof floors; that the contractors who built the
Detention Center improperly followed blueprints with respect
to drains and slip-proof floors; and that the subcontractor
failed to construct the fire sprinklers, plumbing, and
concrete. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary
judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claims because he
has failed to establish that Defendant negligently
constructed the Detention Center.
objects to the Report and reiterates that his claims and the
videos he provided demonstrate that the Detention Center was
negligently constructed and did not allow for proper
drainage. Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge
misstated several facts, including where the water originated
from, how much water was on the floor, and that employees of
the Detention Center can be seen attempting to address the
problem.Plaintiff also generally objects to the way
this case has been handled.
Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including
the evidence produced by Plaintiff; the applicable law; and
the Report of the Magistrate Judge. Having done so, the Court
agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that
the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. As explained by
the Magistrate Judge, to prevail on his claim of negligence,
Plaintiff would have to show the following by a preponderance
of the evidence: (1) a duty of care owed by Defendant to him;
(2) a breach of that duty by a negligent act or omission; and
(3) damage proximately resulting from the breach.
Stonehenge Eng'g Corp. v. Emp'rs Ins. of
Wausau, 201 F.3d 296, 303 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing
South Carolina Ins. Co. v. James C. Greene &
Co., 348 S.E.2d 617, 620 (S.C. 1986)). “[T]o
prevail at trial upon a claim of breach of implied warranty
to perform work in a careful, diligent, and workmanlike
manner, [Plaintiff] would have to prove that [Defendant] did
not construct the [Detention Center] in a careful, diligent,
and workmanlike manner.” Id. Viewing all
evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he has not
created a genuine issue of material fact with respect to
whether Defendant negligently constructed the Detention
Center. See Ross v. Commc'ns Satellite Corp.,
759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985), overruled on other
grounds, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (holding that conclusory
allegations, without more, are insufficient to preclude the
granting of summary judgment).
the Court adopts the Reports of the Magistrate Judge and
overrules Plaintiff's objections. Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment  is GRANTED.
 Plaintiff also contends that he did
not receive the Report in time to complete his objections
before they were due. He states that he received the Report
on April 1, 2019, and the Court filed his objections on April
22, 2019. In light of his allegations that he did not receive
the Report for ...