Opinion
C/A No. 6:03-3799-RBH.
March 31, 2005
ORDER
Plaintiff Anthony Burnside is an inmate of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. At the time of the incident which forms the basis of this lawsuit plaintiff was housed in the Marion Unit of Broad River Correctional Institution ("BRCI"). Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when he was attacked by another inmate on July 16, 2003.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe for pretrial handling. On March 15, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. By order filed March 19, 2004, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), plaintiff was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion for summary judgment on April 21, 2004. Plaintiff also filed a motion for requests for admission on April 21, 2004, and a motion to compel discovery on May 28, 2004.
On July 21, 2004, United States Magistrate William M. Catoe issued a report analyzing the issues and recommending that the District Court grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed objections, entitled "Traverse," to the report and recommendation on August 3, 2004. Defendants filed a response to the "Traverse" on August 12, 2004.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The district court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the district court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982).
Facts
The court agrees with the factual and procedural background as set forth by the Magistrate Judge in her Report and Recommendation. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's version of the facts in this case to the extent such facts are not specifically included herein.
On July 16, 2003, while plaintiff was in the shower area of the Marion Unit another inmate, Dewayne Harrell, entered the shower area carrying a metal shank and became involved in an altercation with the plaintiff. Harell tried to stab the plaintiff in the face as well as other areas. When plaintiff fell to the floor, Harrell stabbed the plaintiff in the back. Two other inmates intervened on behalf of the plaintiff. Correctional Officer Robert Craig observed the altercation. He immediately gave an order for the Burnside and Harrell to separate. Harrell was escorted from the area and segregated in a secure location. The plaintiff was transported to the Medical Unit on a stretcher by several inmates. He was then transported to Palmetto Richland Memorial Hospital where he received treatment for his injuries. Plaintiff returned to BRCI later that day.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). It is well established that summary judgment should be granted "only when it is clear that there is no dispute concerning either the facts of the controversy or the inferences to be drawn from those facts." Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Props., 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987).
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and the court must view the evidence before it and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). When the defendant is the moving party and the plaintiff has the ultimate burden of proof on an issue, the defendant must identify the parts of the record that demonstrate the plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence. The nonmoving party, here the plaintiff, must then go beyond the pleadings and designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also generally Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).
A party "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). Therefore, "[m]ere unsupported speculation . . . is not enough to defeat a summary judgment motion." Ennis v. National Ass'n of Bus. Educ. Radio, Inc., 53 F.3d 55, 62 (4th Cir. 1995).
Discussion
Plaintiff asserts in his objections that the Magistrate Judge improperly recommended that summary judgment be granted on the basis that he could not establish deliberate indifference on the part of defendants with regard to Harrell's attack on the plaintiff. Plaintiff additionally asserts that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. It does not appear to this Court that the plaintiff set forth any specific objections with regard to the Magistrate's recommendations concerning the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the defendants' entitlement to Eleventh Amendment immunity, respondeat superior, or qualified immunity.
Attack by Fellow Inmate
Deliberate and callous indifference on the part of prison officials to a specific known risk of harm states an Eighth Amendment claim. Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1987) (Eighth rather than Fourteenth Amendment provides primary source of protection). Deliberate indifference in the face of a pervasive risk of harm also states an Eighth Amendment claim. Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312, 1315 (4th Cir. 1991); Shrader v. White, 761 F.2d 975, 979 (4th Cir. 1985) (inmate must suffer "significant mental distress" and danger must be "totally without penological justification"). Prison officials cannot be held liable under the Eighth Amendment unless they knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994) (subjective state of mind requirement). Prison supervisors with knowledge of pervasive risk of harm may be held liable when they wantonly or with deliberate indifference fail to address a condition. Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312, 1316 (4th Cir. 1991). Neither the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986), nor the Eighth Amendment, Moore, 927 F.2d at 1316. is violated by negligent failure to protect inmates from violence.
In the instant case, Burnside complains that the defendants failed to protect him from the assault committed by Harrell. However, plaintiff offers no evidence that Harrell had ever previously physically assaulted him or that Harrell had a history of assaulting fellow prisoners. See Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312, 1316 (4th Cir. 1991) (Prison officials with knowledge of pervasive risk of harm may be held liable when they obdurately, wantonly, or with deliberate indifference fail to address the condition). The plaintiff has not alleged or offered any evidence that the defendants knew that the plaintiff faced a substantial risk from Harrell and failed to take reasonable steps to abate it. Additionally, defendants White, Maxey, Beckwith, Bing, and Craig have each testified that they had received no information from any source prior to the July 16, 2003 incident that plaintiff had ever been threatened by another inmate, that he believed he was at risk of harm from another inmate, or that he was in fact at risk of harm from another inmate.
Even viewing plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable to him, they fail to establish deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants. Additionally, plaintiff makes repeated reference to the defendants' "negligence" in failing to prevent the assault, belying his claim that his constitutional rights were violated. Negligence alone does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298
Medical Care and Treatment
For the first time plaintiff raises in his "Traverse" allegations concerning inadequate medical treatment following the incident at issue in this case. Nowhere in plaintiff's complaint does he make any allegations concerning inadequate medical care or treatment. Nor does he allege that any of the defendants had any responsibility for providing him with any type or level of medical care or treatment. Consequently, such claims are untimely and improperly raised.
Conclusion
After a review of the case law and record before it, the court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, incorporates it herein, and overrules plaintiff's objections. For the reasons stated therein and in this order, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.