Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Samuel T. Whatley, et al., Petitioners v. Medical University of South Carolina

Appendix A

14

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1373

Doc: 5

FHed: 06/01/2024

Pg;1bf2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUrr

No. 24-1373

REVEREND DR. SAMUEL T. WHATLEY; SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, %

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at

Charleston. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (2:23-cv-Q2500-JDA)

Submitted: July 30.2024

Decided: August 1,2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel T. Whatley. Samuel T. Whatley, It, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

15

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1373:

;Ooc: 5

Fifed: 08/01/2024

Pg:2of2

PER CURIAM:

Reverend Dr. Samuel T Whatley and Samuel T. Whatley H appeal the district

courts order accepting the recommendation ofthe magistratejudge and dismissing without

prejudice' their civil complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

the district court’s carder. Whatley v. Med. Univ. o/S.C.r No. 2:23-cv-02500-JDA (D.S.C.

Apr. 8,2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in die materials before this court and argument would not aid die

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is a final order because die court

dismissed die complaint “without granting leave to amend.” Britt v. DeJ0,45 F.4th 790,

791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

2

16

USGA4. Appeal: -54-1373

Dot: 6-2

Fled: 0810112024

.ppl-tH

itotaI;Pages;(4of4>

FILED: August 1.2024

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1373

(2.23-CV-02500-JDA)

REVEREND DR, SAMUEL T. WHATLEY; SAMUEL T. WHATLEY, II

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Defendant Appellee

JUDGMENT

fa accordance with fee decision of this court, the judgment of the district

court is affirmed.

This judgment shall take effect upon issuance of this court's mandate in

accordance with Fed R. App P, 41.

isi NWAMAKA ANOWI. CLERK

17

Appendix B

18

2:23-cv-G250G"JDA

Date Filed 04/08/24 Entry Number 28

Page ! of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley;

Samuel Whatley, ll,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Medical University of South Carolina,

Defendant.

}

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:23-cv-025GQ-JDA

J

OPINION AND ORDER

)

)

)

)

This matter is before the Court on a Complaint filed by Plaintiffs. [Doc. T.j In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter

was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs requested that Defendant provide

medical treatment to their family member, Eunice Greene Thompson, but Defendant

refused to provide the treatment that they requested and Thompson died in the fall of

2022 after Defendant left her off of life support for seven hours. [Doc. 1 at 5.] The

Complaint also alleges that Defendant had "refused treatment to plaintiffs) from 2021 to

2022 by unlawfully requiring proof of vaccination as a condition of treatment.” [id.] as

their relief, they seek '[cjornpensafion tor the pain and suffering caused by lack of care

that resulted in the death of a family member. That is, the bills Incurred and ignoring the

request to do the rehabilitation therapy despite having the equipment and personnel to

do so,” f/d]

19

2:23-cv-025OQ-JDA

Date Filed 04/08/24

Entry Number 28

Pag® 2 of 4

On June 23,2023, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order advising Plaintiffs that

their Complaint, as filed, is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ lS1S(e)(25{B){il) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (the "Order

Regarding Amendment). [Doc. 12.J The Order Regarding Amendment stated that

Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to the

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (The Act). (/d.J, The Magistrate

Judge explained that to recover under the Act, *a plaintiff must show that he (1) suffered

‘personal harm' as (2) a direct result* of (3) the hospital’s violation," and that Plaintiffs

failed to plausibly aNege any of those elements, ftt at 3-5.j The Magistrate Judge

granted Plaintiffs 21 days from the date that the Order was entered (plus three days for

mail time) to file an amended complaint correcting the Identified deficiencies. [W. at 5.]

Plaintiffs did not file ant amended complaint, but instead, on July 7,2023, filed an

"Objection and Motion* to the Court’s Order, asking the Court to authorize service based

on the Complaint they had already filed. [Ooc. 14.J In the filing, Plaintiffs argued that the

Magistrate Judge "attempt[ed] to interfere in due process involving medical malpractice

and wrongful death of a family member, Eunice Greene Thompson, by insinuating that

... the socio-economic status of plaintiffsQ justifies blocking defendant tom being

served.* (M at 1.] Plaintiffs also repeated the allegations made in their Complaint and

alleged that "Defendant knowingly covered up the wrongful death by deleting any medical

records associated with {Thompson) and did not inform plaintiffs after removing

{Thompson] off life support."

{id, at 1-2.]

Plaintiffs incorporated documentation

2

20

2:23-cv-02500-JDA

Date Filed 04/08/24

Entry Number 28

Page 3 of 4

supporting their contention that they had requester! treatment of the type mat Defendant

was capable of providing, [id. at 3-17 J They also added allegations concerning a

different family member who was denied care by Defendants personnel. [Id. at 17-18.J

On August 15,2023, me Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(the "Report'). {Doc. 19.j In me Report, me Magistrate Judge noted Plaintiffs* "Objection

and Motion” and concluded from the filing mat "it appealed] [Plaintiffs; have elected to

stand on their Complaint as filed.’ {(d at 1] The Magistrate Judge therefore concluded

that, for all me reasons In me Order Regarding Amendment, me Complaint was subject

to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § i915<2X2MB)(iI) tor failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted, and me Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs' motion to

serve Defendant on mat basis. [Id. at 1 & n.l.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff

of me procedures and requirements tor filing objections to me Report and the serious

consciences if they failed to do so.

Plaintiffs men filed objections to me Report. [Doc. 22.] In me objections, Plaintiffs

merely restate me factual basis tor their claim without addressing the Magistrate Judge’s

legal analysis, including me deficiencies me Magistrate Judge Identified in the Complaint.

m

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to mis court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and me responsibly to make a final

determination remains with me Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion ot the Report of the

Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or

3

21

2;23*cv-02SQ0-JDA

Date Filed 04/08/24

Entry Number 28

Page 4 of 4

modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or

recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with Instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),

The Court win review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating

that *in 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.* (interna! quotation marks omitted)).

The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report

of the Magistrate Judge—including the denial of Plaintiffs' motion to serve Defendant—

for dear error. Having done so, the Court finds no dear error, accepts the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly,

the action is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Jacouelvn D Austin

United States Dlstrid Judge

Columbia, South Carolina

April 8,2024

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules

3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4

22

2:23-cv-02500-JDA

Date Filed 08/15/23

Entry Number 19

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley; Samuel

Whatley, II,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Medical University of South Carolina,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

C/A No. 2:23-2500-SAL-PJG

)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

)

)

)

)

The plaintiffs, proceeding without counsel, filed this civil action. 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.) for initial review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. By order dated June 23, 2023, the court provided the plaintiffs the

opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the court that would

warrant summary dismissal of the Complaint. (ECF No. 12.) The plaintiffs did not file an

amended complaint. Instead, the plaintiffs filed an “objection” to the court’s order (ECF No. 14),

asking the court to authorize service based on the Complaint they already filed and providing

supporting documentation. Thus, it appears the plaintiffs have elected to stand on their Complaint

as filed. See Britt v. DeJov. 45 F.4th 790, 796-97 (4th Cir. 2022).

The court has thoroughly reviewed the plaintiffs’ Complaint and supporting documents,

and for all the reasons stated in the court’s June 23 order, concludes that the Complaint is subject

to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted. l

l

In light of the court’s recommendation, plaintiffs motion to serve the defendant is denied.

(ECF No. 14.)

Page 1 of 3

2:23-cv-02500-JDA

August 15, 2023

Columbia, South Carolina

Date Filed 08/15/23

Entry Number 19

Paige J. GcMett

*

Page 2 of 3

~

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached

“Notice ofRight to File Objections to Report and Recommendation. ”

Page 2 of 3

2:23-cv-02500-JDA

Date Filed 08/15/23

Entry Number 19

Page 3 of 3

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. Am, 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).

Page 3 of 3

2:23-cv-02500-JDA

Date Filed 04/08/24 Entry Number 29

Page 1 of 1

fo»CivS Aefea

united States District Court

for the

District rtf South Carolina

Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley and Samuel T.

________ liaa________

Plaintiffs

v.

Civil Act ion No.

Medical University of South Carolina,

223.cv-250O-.roA

)

)

)

)

)

Defendant,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The courtlias ordered that (checkme);

O the plaintiff (mm)

_ recover from the defendant (name)...

the amount of

.dollars <$_J,

which includes prejudgment interest at fee rate of

%. plus postjudgment interest at the rateaf___ %, along wife

costs.

■ The plaintiffs. Reverend Dr. Samuel T. Whatley and Samuel T. Whatley, ll, shall take nothing of the defendant,

Medical University of South Oirolitsa, and this action is dismissed without prejutSc© and without issuance and sendee

ofprocess.

This action was (ckedkomf

Otricd by ajury, the Honorable

O tried by fee Honorable

presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict.

presiding, without a jury and the above decision was reached.

■ decided by the Honorable Jacquelyn O. Austin, United States District Judge, presiding. The Court having adopted

the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Paige J, Gossett, United States Magistrate Judge, which

recommended dismissal.

Date: April 8,2024

ROBIN L. BWm CL ERK OF COURT

s/Amanda D. Hilley

Sgmmm of(Seekor Deputy Geek

23

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.