Opinion
C. A. 23-2874-RMG-PJG
01-11-2024
David Antonio Little, Jr., Plaintiff, v. B. Young; De'Angelo Fludd, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff David Antonio Little, Jr., a self-represented state prisoner, filed civil rights claims against the above-captioned defendants. These claims were originally brought in C/A No. 0:23-2186, but the court severed them by order dated June 21, 2023. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) on the defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 42.) Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised Plaintiff of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to the defendants' motion. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 47.) Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the applicable law, the court finds that the defendants' motion should be denied.
The defendants argue that this case should be dismissed because the claims raised by Plaintiff-specifically, that Plaintiff was unlawfully administered psychiatric medication without his consent-are duplicative to those brought by him in civil actions 0:22-4288-RMG and 0:22-2872-RMG. (ECF No. 42 at 2-3.) However, as outlined in the court's June 21, 2023 Order severing claims, the only claims in the instant matter pertain to Defendants Young and Fludd, who were not involved in the administration of psychiatric medicine. (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Moreover, in its August 14, 2023 Order the court further detailed the claims being raised by Plaintiff in the instant matter as follows:
[h]aving reviewed the Complaint in accordance with the applicable law, the court construes it as purporting to assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of excessive force, deprivation of due process, and deliberate indifferent to serious medical needs against Defendant B. Young, and claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs, bystander liability, and supervisor liability against Defendant De'Angelo Fludd.
No other claims are being construed by the court as having been raised by Plaintiff in this action at this time.(ECF No. 18 at 2.) Accordingly, as the claims in the instant matter, as severed by the court, are not duplicative, the defendants' motion to dismiss should be denied.
The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a 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.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).