Opinion
C/A 4:24-1004-JD-TER
04-10-2024
Eric Emmanual Canty, Plaintiff, v. Horry County, Horry County Sheriff, Myrtle Beach Police Department, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas E. Rogers, III, United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil action filed by a pretrial detainee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and District of South Carolina Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), the undersigned is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and to submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e); 1915A (as soon as possible after docketing, district courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to summary dismissal).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of Plaintiff's pro se complaint filed in this case. This review has been conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978).
Plaintiff's Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” “is frivolous or malicious,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. at 31. Under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Such pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Id.; Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Even under this less stringent standard, however, the pro se complaint may be subject to summary dismissal. The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which plaintiff could prevail, it should do so, but a district court may not rewrite a complaint to include claims that were never presented, construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him, or conjure up questions never squarely presented to the court. Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985); Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993); Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 1999). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir.1990) (The “special judicial solicitude” with which a [court] should view such pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate.).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's action is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 27, 2024, Plaintiff was ordered by the Court to file an Amended Complaint because deficiencies in the original Complaint would result in a summary dismissal if not remedied by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11). The court expressly identified the deficiencies and directed Plaintiff with case law regarding the specific deficiencies. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and changed some of the named Defendants, but the deficiencies remain.
Plaintiff alleges generally that he was arrested and was not read his rights. (ECF No. 14 at 5). Plaintiff alleges he was given the wrong medication for months and it harmed his stomach lining and generally he has been refused proper medical care. (ECF No. 14 at 6). Plaintiff does not plead any injuries under the injury section of the complaint form. (ECF No. 14 at 7). As relief, Plaintiff requests punitive damages. (ECF No. 14 at 7). Plaintiff alleges steps to appeal his grievances were “I wrote the supreme court for help, asking for Internal Affairs to look into this matter, no answer yet.” (ECF No. 14 at 9).
To the extent Plaintiff alleges as his “statement of claim” that he “wasn't read my right before my arrest,” a violation of Miranda does not provided a basis for a § 1983 claim. (ECF No. 14 at 5); Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134, 150 (2022).
Plaintiff names a county and a sheriff as defendants sued in their official capacities only in the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14 at 1-3). Plaintiff was previously informed with explanation and citation to case law that Eleventh Amendment immunity would apply to Horry County and any county employees sued in their official capacity only. (ECF No. 11). This would also apply to the county's sheriff. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to named Defendants Horry County and Horry County Sheriff.
To the extent Plaintiff complains about his medical care generally, Plaintiff makes no factual allegations causally connected to Defendants Myrtle Beach Police Department, Horry County, and Horry County Sheriff. (ECF No. 14 at 6). Plaintiff was previously instructed in the court's order about causal connections between specific conduct, specific individual defendants, and specific injuries and requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. R.8 and related case law. (ECF No. 11).
To the extent the only allegation against Myrtle Beach Police Department is “has damage my name by putting false information out in public.. About me..,” there is no federal right of actions under § 1983 for defamation, libel, or slander. (ECF No. 14 at 6)(errors in original); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 702 (1976); Aylor v. Town of Culpeper, 103 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 1996). Further, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts as to Myrtle Beach Police Department that would subject it to Monell-type liability. (ECF No. 14).
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against the named Defendants in the Amended Complaint and this action is subject to summary dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the District Court dismiss this action with prejudice under § 1915(e) and § 1915A and without issuance and service of process.
It is recommended that this action be dismissed without further leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790 (4th Cir. 2022).
Plaintiff's 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
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
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).