Scott Tyree v. United States
642 F. App'x 228
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Scott William Tyree, a federal inmate, sued under the FTCA alleging BOP failed to protect him and delayed response when his cellmate attacked him.
- Tyree contended an emergency light activated and he was beaten for about five minutes before officers arrived; officers submitted affidavits asserting they responded immediately.
- Tyree, proceeding pro se, asked the district court to defer ruling on the Government’s summary judgment motion to permit discovery (video, reports, inmate records, emergency system status) to resolve the timeline dispute.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Government based on its affidavits without ruling on or addressing Tyree’s Rule 56(d) discovery request.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether denying discovery and granting summary judgment prematurely was an abuse of discretion given disputed timelines and potential evidence in BOP control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper before discovery under Rule 56(d) | Tyree argued discovery (video, reports, records, system logs) was necessary to show officers delayed ~5 minutes and cellmate’s unsuitability | Government relied on affidavits claiming immediate response and argued no genuine dispute of material fact | Vacated and remanded: district court abused discretion by granting summary judgment without addressing Rule 56(d) request where discovery could create a genuine factual dispute |
| Whether BOP breached duty by failing to protect prisoner via placement or response | Tyree alleged negligence in placement and delayed response caused harm | Government denied knowledge or unreasonable delay; affidavits asserted prompt action | Court did not decide merits; held discovery needed because factual dispute over timeline and knowledge could create triable issue |
| Applicability of FTCA duty standard for federal prisoners | Tyree relied on FTCA/§4042 duty to keep prisoners safe | Government did not contest legal duty; relied on facts to show no breach | Court applied standard but remanded for factual development; did not resolve negligence question |
| Adequacy of record to defeat summary judgment | Tyree argued missing evidence in Government’s control made record inadequate | Government argued affidavits were sufficient to show no material dispute | Court held record was inadequate without discovery and vacated summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment genuine-dispute standard)
- United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1963) (BOP duty to prisoners governed by 18 U.S.C. § 4042)
- Parrott v. United States, 536 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008) (negligence in placement requires knowledge or constructive knowledge of risks)
- Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234 (4th Cir. 1995) (Rule 56(d) protects against premature summary judgment)
- Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006) (additional discovery futile only if it would not create a genuine issue)
- Palay v. United States, 349 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2003) (examples where failure to respond timely may be negligent)