Orange v. Fielding, C.A. No. 0:06-2601-PMD-BM.
| Decision Date | 24 July 2007 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 0:06-2601-PMD-BM. |
| Citation | 517 F.Supp.2d 776 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Travis ORANGE, Plaintiff, v. Audrey FIELDING, Sergeant; Antron Lewis, Officer; Willie Winns, Officer; Lane Cribb, Sheriff of Georgetown County; and Michael Schwartz, Jail Administrative Director of the Georgetown County Detention Center, Defendants. |
Travis Orange, Bennettsville, SC, Pro se.
Audrey Fielding, Andrews, SC, Pro se.
Antron Lewis, Myrtle Beach, SC, Pro se.
Benjamin A. Baroody, Bellamy Rutenburg Copeland Epps Gravely and Bowers, Myrtle Beach, SC, Bradford Cary Andrews, Samuel F. Arthur, III, Aiken Bridges Nunn Elliott and Tyler PA, Florence, SC, for Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Defendant Lane Cribb's ("Cribb") Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Defendant Michael Schwartz's ("Schwartz") Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. The Record contains a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of a United States Magistrate Judge which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A dissatisfied party may object, in writing, to an R & R within ten days after being served with a copy of that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff Travis Orange ("Plaintiff" or "Orange"), Schwartz, and Defendant Audrey Fielding ("Fielding") filed timely objections to the R & R.1
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated while he was a pretrial detainee at the Georgetown County Detention Center (the "Detention Center") in Georgetown, South Carolina. In his verified amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on January 4, 2005, he was assaulted by Defendants Fielding, Antron Lewis ("Lewis"), and Willie Winns ("Winns"), all officers at the Detention Center. He alleges he requested to speak with Fielding after he was told he would be placed in "Lock-Up for giving an [i]nmate of Georgetown Detention Center some canteen under the door." (Am. Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that after he requested to speak with Fielding, he was threatened by Officer Winns and Officer Lewis, "who immediately beg[a]n to beat me to the state of unconsciousness, along with being helped by Sgt. Fielding to beat me." (Am. Compl. at 5.) Specifically, he alleges Winns used mace on Plaintiff and choked him, and Lewis kicked Plaintiff in the face while Lewis was wearing steel-toe working boots. (See Am. Compl. at 6-7.) 2 According to Plaintiff, Fielding "stood by and watched those in and under her supervision use excessive force" on Plaintiff. (Am. Compl. at 7.) He further alleges that as a result of the beating, he had to be transported to Williamsburg Regional Hospital and that he now suffers from chronic physical damages, including blackout spells and injuries to his back, neck and face. (Am. Compl. at 5.) Although unclear from Plaintiffs amended complaint exactly when, Plaintiff alleges that after he was beaten, he experienced "further act[s] of abuse and cruel and unusual punishment, by being subjected to being strip[p]ed naked of clothing and food for three days following the [c]omission of the Officers['] deliberate indifference to my well[-being] and safety." (Am. Compl. at 9-10.)
Plaintiff asserts that Captain Barry Marshall of the Division of Internal Affairs at the Detention Center conducted an investigation into the incident occurring on January 4, which resulted in Fielding, Winns, and Lewis being terminated from their jobs. (See Am. Compl. at 5-6.) Furthermore, Plaintiff, alleges that criminal charges were brought against the officers as a result of the incident and that Lewis pled guilty to these charges.3 Defendant Lewis allegedly admitted "to S.L.E.D. Investigator Rodney Thompson that he kicked [Plaintiff] in the face on the date of January 4, 2005." (Am. Compl. at 8.) The Amended Complaint further states, "The Plaintiff asserts that he has been subjected to the deliberate indifference of the defendants of this action, by their own omission of deviating from the standards of professional ethics, and the Georgetown Detention Center, policies, rules, and regulations ..." (Am. Compl. at 10.)
Plaintiff states he is suing Defendant Schwartz in his individual and official capacity; Plaintiff asserts Schwartz is liable for Plaintiff's injuries because Schwartz is the administrator of the Detention Center and therefore has "the authority to train his Employees/Officers to set better standards before the public eye." (Am. Compl. at 12.) Plaintiff asserts the officers were "able to subject [him] to such cruel and unusual punishment, while being under the authority and supervision of its administrator [, Schwartz,] who[] fail[ed] to train, discipline, and demand strict compliance with the rules, policies, and regulations, set forth to operate such a facility, that has intentionally, violated my 8th and 14th Constitutional Amendment Right." (Am. Compl. at 12.) As Magistrate Judge Marchant notes in the R & R, the narrative of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint does not mention Defendant Cribb.
On January 9, 2007, Schwartz and Cribb filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Schwartz and Cribb "take the position that all allegations against them are made in their official capacities as the administrators of the Detention Center." (Mem. in Supp. at 1.) They both state that they did not have any personal involvement with the Plaintiff while he was housed at the Detention Center. (See Schwartz Aff. ¶ 5; Cribb Aff. ¶ 4.) Both Cribb and Schwartz assert they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity. (Mot. for Summ. J. at 5.)
In an R & R dated April 20, 2007, Magistrate Judge Marchant recommended granting Defendant Cribb's Motion for Summary Judgment because (1) Plaintiff did not mention Cribb in the text of his Amended Complaint, (2) Plaintiff did not present any evidence that Cribb had any knowledge of Plaintiff's situation at the jail, and (3) Plaintiff presented no evidence that Cribb played any role in the assault. (See R & R at 7.) The Magistrate Judge stated, "[I]t, is readily apparent from a plain reading of the allegations of Plaintiffs Complaint as well as the other filings in this case that the only reason Cribb has been named as a party Defendant is because he is the Sheriff of Georgetown County." (R & R at 8.) While the Magistrate Judge noted Cribb "may be held liable for the conduct of the other Defendants if that conduct was the result of an official policy or custom for which Cribb was responsible, Plaintiff presented no evidence regarding the existence of any official policy or custom put in place" by Cribb which led to the assault. (R & R at 9.) The R & R notes that Plaintiff "specifically asserts in his Complaint ... that the conduct alleged was in violation of the Detention Center's policies." (R & R at 9.)
The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Schwartz's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Magistrate Judge noted that an affidavit filed by Plaintiff on April 6, 2007 contained some specific allegations against Defendant Schwartz. In this affidavit, Plaintiff states that once he discovered Defendant Lewis was related to one of Plaintiff's co-defendants, Plaintiff immediately contacted one of his attorneys to "inform[] him on the danger that [Plaintiff] was in." (Pl.'s Aff. ¶ 11.) He describes how his attorneys attempted to get him transferred to another facility and further states (verbatim),
22. I spoke with Jail Administrative Director Michael Schwartz and Captain Barry Marshall several times along with Lt. Wineglass and Lt. Barenose about my transferred.
23. I told them about the danger that I was in. But failed to take action. By following their Policy(s).
(Pl.'s Aff. ¶ 22-23.) The Magistrate Judge noted that based on these assertions, "for purposes of summary judgment there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether Schwartz was at least aware of Plaintiff's claim that he was in danger and needed to be transferred out of the Georgetown County Detention Center, but took no action." (R & R at 10.) The Magistrate Judge further found summary judgment was not appropriate with respect to Schwartz pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity because "it was certainly clearly established at the time of the filing of Plaintiffs Complaint that an inmate's constitutional rights could be violated if government officials know of a danger to an inmate and fail to take any corrective action." (R & R at 11.)
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's R & R to which a specific objection is registered and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). After a review of the entire record and the R & R, as well as objections filed by Plaintiff and Defendant Schwartz, the court finds the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately summarized the facts and applied the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the court adopts the R & R and fully incorporates it into this Order.
To grant a motion for summary judgment, the court must find 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). The judge is not to weigh the evidence but rather must determine if there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). All evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 123-24 (4th Cir.1990). "[W]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, disposition by summary judgment is appropriate." Teamsters Joint Council No. 83 v. Centra., Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial