Mickell v. Stirling

• Decision Date: 15 February 2017
• Docket Number: Civil Action No.: 6:15-cv-04656-RBH
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: Darrell J. Mickell, Plaintiff, v. Bryan Stirling, C. Reynolds, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Graham, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Williams, Ms. Shaw, and Ms. Smith, Defendants.

Darrell J. Mickell, Plaintiff, v. Bryan Stirling, C. Reynolds, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Graham,Mr. Nolan, Mr. Williams, Ms. Shaw, and Ms. Smith, Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 6:15-cv-04656-RBH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

February 15, 2017

ORDER

Plaintiff Darrell J. Mickell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-captioned Defendants alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See ECF No. 56. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.¹ See R & R [ECF No. 95]. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. R & R at 7. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the R & R. See ECF No. 97.

Legal Standards

I. Review of the R & R

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The Magistrate Judge'srecommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).

II. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cty., Md., 789 F.3d 407, 413 (4th Cir. 2015); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ("The court shall grant summary judgment 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."). "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . ; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The facts andinferences to be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Reyazuddin, 789 F.3d at 413, but the Court "cannot weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations." Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 569 (4th Cir. 2015).

Discussion²

In his verified complaint,³ Plaintiff alleges Defendants subjected him to unconstitutional conditions of confinement at Lee Correctional Institution ("LCI") in Bishopville, South Carolina.⁴ See Complaint [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Id. He asserts three claims relating to the time period when he was confined in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU")⁵ at LCI, alleging he was (1) denied regular showers, (2) deprived of adequate lighting in his cell, and (3) served cold food. Plaintiff asserts a fourth claim relating to the time period when he was returned to general population at LCI, alleging he was housed in a cell that did not contain a locker or table. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. R & R at 4-7. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the R & R. See Pl.'s Objs. [ECF No. 97]. Defendants have not filed a reply to Plaintiff's objections.

I. Qualified Immunity

Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. See R & R at 7. Plaintiff asserts the "Magistrate Judge is not authorized to raise defenses on behalf of the Defendants," and he contends that while Defendants "raised various defenses, qualified immunity was not one of them." Pl.'s Objs. at 1-2. Plaintiff further contends "Defendants did not raise a qualified immunity defense . . . within the motion for summary judgment." Id. at 7. Thus, Plaintiff claims the Magistrate Judge erred by sua sponte invoking the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to liability under § 1983, and the defendant bears the burden of pleading it. Jones v. Chandrasuwan, 820 F.3d 685, 691 (4th Cir. 2016); Sales v. Grant, 224 F.3d 293, 296 (4th Cir. 2000). Qualified immunity "shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 118 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). A court must conduct a two-step inquiry when determining whether qualified immunity applies. Jones, 820 F.3d at 691. "First, a court must decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has shown make out a violation of a constitutional right. Second, the court must consider whether the right at issue was 'clearly established' at the time of the alleged misconduct." Id. (internal citation omitted).

Although Defendants plead qualified immunity in their answer to Plaintiff's verified complaint, they do not argue or even mention qualified immunity in their motion for summary judgment. Compare Answer [ECF No. 30] at ¶ 12, with Defs.' Motion & Memo. [ECF Nos. 56 & 56-1]. Instead, Defendants' arguments in their summary judgment motion focus wholly on the merits of Plaintiff'sconditions of confinement claims,⁶ and Defendants do not make the distinct argument that their alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. Moreover, Defendants have not filed a reply rebutting Plaintiff's objection. The Fourth Circuit has flatly stated that "an issue of qualified immunity [is] distinct from the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred," held that a qualified immunity defense cursorily raised in an answer and not clearly raised in a motion for summary judgment is deemed abandoned, and declined to consider qualified immunity sua sponte in a § 1983 case. Buffington v. Baltimore Cty., 913 F.2d 113, 120-22 (4th Cir. 1990).⁷ Consequently, Defendants can be deemed to have waived their qualified immunity defense. Qualified immunity is not a proper basis for granting summary judgment, and the Court respectfully rejects the portion of the R & R finding Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. Nevertheless, Defendants are still entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff's claims fail on the merits, as explained below.

II. Plaintiff's Claims

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's determination that none of his four conditions of confinement claims amount to a constitutional violation. See R & R at 4-6.

The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments," protects inmates from inhumane treatment and conditions during incarceration. Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim that a prisoner was not provided humane conditions of confinement, the prisoner must prove two components: "(1) that the deprivation of [a] basic human need was objectively sufficiently serious, and (2) that subjectively the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind." De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he constitutional prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment does not mandate comfortable prisons, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation." Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Only extreme deprivations are adequate to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim regarding conditions of confinement." De'Lonta, 330 F.3d at 634. "In order to demonstrate such an extreme deprivation, a prisoner must allege a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions, or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from the prisoner's exposure to the challenged conditions." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Viewing the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all four of Plaintiff's conditions of confinement claims.⁸ Regarding the objective component of the Eighth Amendment analysis, Plaintiff has not produced evidence of a serious or significant physical oremotional injury resulting from any of the challenged conditions, nor has he demonstrated a...