From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graham v. Florence Cnty. Det. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sep 9, 2015
No. 6:15-cv-02875-RMG (D.S.C. Sep. 9, 2015)

Opinion

No. 6:15-cv-02875-RMG

09-09-2015

Teddy Graham, Plaintiff, v. Florence County Detention Center, Defendants.


ORDER

The case arises out of a slip and fall at the Florence County Detention Center and Plaintiff's subsequent medical treatment. (See Dkt. No. 1). The Magistrate Judge recommended summary dismissal of the case because the named Defendant, Florence County Detention Center, is not a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983. (Dkt. No. 13). The Court agrees. E.g., Jones v. Lexington Cnty. Det. Ctr., 586 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (D.S.C. 2008).

Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of Florence County Detention Center but asks to amend his complaint to "properly identify the defendants as Florence County Detention Center's Administrative Staff." (Dkt. No. 15). However, "use of the term 'staff' or the equivalent as a name for alleged defendants, without the naming of specific staff members, is not adequate to state a claim against a 'person' as required in section 1983 actions." Barnette v. Padula, No. CIV.A. 9:09-CV-00949, 2009 WL 1371815, at *2 (D.S.C. May 15, 2009) (citing cases); see also Wilson v. Greenville Cnty. Det. Admin. & Staff, No. 2:13-CV-199-RMG, 2013 WL 1716430, at *3 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2013) ("[N]aming 'Greenville County Detention Administration and Staff' as a defendant in this action is too general to state a cognizable claim under Section 1983."). While Plaintiff need not know the names of particular staff members that he wishes sue, in order to state a claim, he must make allegations against specific staff members and provide identifying information about any such "John Does." See Wilson v. Greenville Cnty. Det. Admin. & Staff, No. 2:13-CV-199-RMG, 2013 WL 1716430, at *3 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2013) (dismissing case for Plaintiff's failure to provide "additional identifying information about any individual 'John Does,' who might be included among the 'X-ray people them' group").

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 13), and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without issuance of service.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

Richard Mark Gergel

United States District Judge
September 9, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina


Summaries of

Graham v. Florence Cnty. Det. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sep 9, 2015
No. 6:15-cv-02875-RMG (D.S.C. Sep. 9, 2015)
Case details for

Graham v. Florence Cnty. Det. Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:Teddy Graham, Plaintiff, v. Florence County Detention Center, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Sep 9, 2015

Citations

No. 6:15-cv-02875-RMG (D.S.C. Sep. 9, 2015)