Lott v. Barfield et al, No. 6:2024cv05341 - Document 13 (D.S.C. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER and OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 8) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice (Dkt. No. 1). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/26/2024. (ltap, )

Download PDF

Lott v. Barfield et al Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Mark Lott, v. Case No. 6:24-cv-05341-RMG Plaintiff, ORDER AND OPINION Diana Barfield, Ron Lawrenz, Eric Ramos, Lisa Young, Defendants. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff objected. (Dkt. No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as the Order of the Court, dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. No. 1). I. Background Plaintiff Mark Lott, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this § 1983 action alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff claims that on July 10, 2024, Defendants were responsible for Plaintiff’s medical shoes being taken. (Id. at 5-6). Plaintiff alleges that his replacement shoes hurt his feet and that his complaints to Defendants were ignored for days until his medical shoes were returned on July 25, 2024. (Id.). The plaintiff’s injuries include bruises on his feet, swelling in his feet, knots on his feet, and reaggravation of injuries to his feet. (Id. at 6). II. Legal Standard A. Review of R&R The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court that has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where the plaintiff objects to the R&R, the Court “makes a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. Where the plaintiff has not objected to the R&R, the Court reviews the R&R only to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note; see also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983) (“In the absence of objection ... we do not believe that it requires any explanation.”). III. Discussion Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights when his medical shoes were taken away for two weeks while in custody. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5–6). As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are evaluated under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires balancing the individual’s liberty interests against the relevant state interests, but “deference must be given to decisions of professionals.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321 (1982). Further, decisions by professionals are presumptively valid and liability may be imposed only when their decisions “is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants exercised professional judgment in determining that the medical shoes needed to be removed, and that the Court should refrain from interfering with the operation of state institutions relating to security determinations. In balancing state interests against Plaintiff’s liberty interests, and giving deference to professional 2 decisions, the Court finds Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge correctly noted that deprivations of property by state employees does not violate the Due Process clause if there is a meaningful post-deprivation remedy, which exists in South Carolina. After examination of the record, the R&R and objections, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 8). IV. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 8) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice (Dkt. No. 1). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. _s/ Richard M. Gergel_ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge November 26, 2024 Charleston, South Carolina 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.