United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Robin Jean Guillaume, Plaintiff, Medical Staff Administrator Bradley, Nurse Chambers, Nurse Lloyd, Nurse S. Edwards, Physician R. Lepiane, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1999) and the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)
alleging violations of his constitutional rights (doc. 1).
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge
is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and
submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on July
29, 2019 (doc. 1). By order filed July 31, 2019, the
plaintiff was given a specific time frame in which to bring
his case into proper form for judicial screening (doc. 7).
The plaintiff complied with the Court's order, bringing
the case into proper form for judicial screening. By order
filed August 30, 2019, the plaintiff was informed that his
complaint was subject to summary dismissal because it failed
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that
he could attempt to cure the defects identified in his
complaint by filing an amended complaint within 14 days (doc.
13). The plaintiff was informed that if he failed to file an
amended complaint or otherwise cure the deficiencies outlined
in the order, the undersigned would recommend that his case
be dismissed (id. at 8-9). On September 25, 2019,
the plaintiff filed a motion seeking an additional thirty
days to provide an amended complaint, which the undersigned
granted on September 30, 2019 (docs. 16; 17). On October 23,
2019, the plaintiff's amended complaint (doc. 19) was
entered on the docket. However, because the amended complaint
likewise fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, the undersigned recommends dismissal of the case.
plaintiff brought this action regarding medical treatment
received after he injured his arm in a basketball game
sponsored by Federal Corrections Institution Estill
(“FCI Estill”) (doc. 19). The plaintiff alleges that
he was initially seen by an outside physician and scheduled
for additional treatment, but that the defendants failed to
transport him for the scheduled treatment (id. at
6). The plaintiff contends that his treatment at the Medical
University of South Carolina (“MUSC”) was
appropriate, but alleges that the defendants intentionally
failed to take the plaintiff for scheduled follow-up
treatment with MUSC in retaliation for grievances he filed
(id. at 6-7). The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants' actions have caused him to suffer permanent
disfigurement to his arm (id. at 7). The plaintiff
seeks $495, 000.00 in damages (id.).
to his amended complaint, the plaintiff has provided a
“notice” indicating that he does not need an
expert affidavit because he is not seeking relief for medical
malpractice (doc. 19-1).
plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute
authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is
satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” is “frivolous or
malicious, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Further, the plaintiff is a prisoner
under the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c), and
“seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). Thus, even if the plaintiff had prepaid the full
filing fee, this Court is charged with screening the
plaintiff's lawsuit to identify cognizable claims or to
dismiss the complaint if (1) it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
pro se litigant, the plaintiff's pleadings are
accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per
curiam). The requirement of liberal construction does
not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the
pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable
in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of
Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
noted above, the plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant
to Bivens and the FTCA, seeking damages from the
defendants. For the reasons that follow, the plaintiff's
amended complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
FTCA sets forth situations in which the United States has
waived the sovereign immunity it otherwise enjoys. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346. The FTCA vests the district courts with:
exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the
United States, for money damages, accruing on and after
January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal
injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or
omission of any employee of the Government while acting
within the scope of his office or employment, under
circumstances where the United States, if a private person,