Vaughn v. SCDC Health Services ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Earnest E. Vaughn, Case No. 6:22-cv-03630-TLW PLAINTIFF v. Order SCDC Health Services, John Doe, DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Earnest E. Vaughn, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against the above-named defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks damages related to injuries allegedly caused by McCormick Correctional Institute’s administration of Plaintiff’s second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Id. Plaintiff purports to bring his suit pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Eight and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Id. He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis was referred to the Honorable Kevin F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636b(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which directs the court to dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as when the complaint seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The magistrate judge reviewed Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), ECF No. 8, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and direct the Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within twenty-one (21) days. Id. at 4. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report filed by the magistrate judge. In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied because he is subject to the PLRA’s “three strikes” rule, which provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgement in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (emphasis added). The Report notes that Plaintiff has had six actions dismissed for either failing to sate a claim or as frivolous or malicious. 1 ECF No. 8 at 3. Plaintiff did not file timely objections to the Report but did ultimately file objections. ECF No. 10. This matter is now ripe for decision. The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. §636. In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any 1 See Vaughn v. Adducci, et al., C/A No. 8:18-cv-03308-TLW, 2019 WL 8806124 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2019), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2020 WL 2523995 (D.S.C. May 18, 2020); Vaughn, Sr. v. Brooks, et al., C/A No. 8:18-cv-02065-TLW, at docs. 9; 13 (D.S.C. May 3, 2019); Vaughn, Sr. v. Abbeville Cnty, et al., C/A No. 8:15-cv-01993-TLW, at docs. 21; 24 (D.S.C. July 21, 2015); Vaughn, Sr. v. Anderson Cnty, et al.,C/A No. 8:15-cv-01954-TLW, at docs. 15; 19 (D.S.C. June 29, 2015); Vaughn, Sr. v.Greenwood Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t et al., C/A No. 8:07-cv- 02022-TLW, at docs. 8; 12 (D.S.C. Dec. 24, 2008); Vaughn, Sr. v. Greenwood Cnty. Det. Ctr., et al., C/A No. 8:07-cv-01385-TLW, at docs. 8; 11 (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2007); Vaughn v. McDade, et al., C/A No. 8:01-cv-00806-DWS, at docs. 4; 5 (D.S.C. May 8, 2001). explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, Plaintiff’s objections, and his submitted exhibits. Plaintiff’s objections largely relate to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint, and Plaintiff does not dispute that he has had more than three actions dismissed either for failing to state a claim or as frivolous. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Report. For the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 8, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The magistrate judge recommends that, should Plaintiff fail to pay the filing fee within twenty-one (21) days, this case should be dismissed. The Court ACCEPTS that recommendation. Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days to pay the filing fee, or this case will be dismissed. Should Plaintiff fail to pay the filing fee, the clerk is instructed to notify the Court so that an order of dismissal may be filed. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge December 6, 2022 Columbia, South Carolina