Opinion
C. A. 2:24-1314-BHH-KDW
06-05-2024
Corey Jawan Robinson, Plaintiff, v. Alkesh B. Gajjar, M.D.; Officer T. Bradley; Nurse B. Rodney; and Nurse W. Kaitlin, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
This is a civil action filed by pro se litigant Corey Jawan Robinson (“Plaintiff”). He filed his Complaint alleging Mcleod Behavioral Health Services employees Alkesh B. Gajjar, M.D., Officer T. Bradley, Nurses B. Rodney and W. Kaitlin committed medical malpractice and violated his civil rights. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Complaint.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges his family lied to have him committed to a mental health facility in 2021 in retaliation for Plaintiff reporting he had been raped by a family member. ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff says after the mental health doctor evaluated him, he determined Plaintiff's medication should be discontinued because Plaintiff's father indicated Plaintiff did not hit him, but only yelled at him, when his father originally reported Plaintiff beat him. Id. Plaintiff claims this information was noted in his medical records. Id. Plaintiff contends his family was not to get another mental health evaluation based on those earlier lies. Id. Plaintiff states on February 13, 2024, Georgetown County Sheriff's officers came to his house after he informed the Sheriff's Office about the earlier incident in August/September 2021. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff states his family subsequently went before another judge, and as a result, Plaintiff was again placed in a facility for an evaluation. Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges Defendants used excessive force on him on February 16, 2024, to inject Plaintiff with two shots after Plaintiff spoke with the doctor who knew about the past lies and mental health evaluation his family used to get Plaintiff's property. Id. Plaintiff says Nurse Kaitlin decided not to wait on reports, and she acted with malice when she made Plaintiff take the medication. Id. Plaintiff claims Nurse Kaitlin said she knew Plaintiff from prison, and she did not care if the statements about Plaintiff were a lie, she was going to make Plaintiff take the medication. Id. Plaintiff says the doctor continued treatment and made a diagnosis based on his family's lies and admitted wrongdoing after he forced Plaintiff to take the shots. Id.
On May 3, 2024, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. ECF No. 19. The order further advised Plaintiff he had until May 17, 2024, to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response to the May 3 order.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his Complaint 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 a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). 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. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). 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 the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that 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).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff seeks to pursue medical malpractice/negligence and excessive force claims against Defendants. However, the law is well settled that negligence and medical malpractice claims are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328-336 & n.3 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 345-348 (1986); Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73 (4th Cir.1995) (Daniels bars an action under § 1983 for negligent conduct). Similarly, medical malpractice, a state law tort, is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). As negligence/medical malpractice are not constitutional violations under § 1983, these claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As to Plaintiff's excessive force claim related to the forced administration of medication, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish Defendants are state actors. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). A defendant can be a “state actor” if (a) he is a state official, (b) he acted together with, or obtained significant aid from, state officials or (c) his conduct is chargeable to the state. Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1981). The “state actor” requirement limits the constitutional challenges that a private party will confront whenever they rely upon a state law which governs their community relationships. Id. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Gajjar acted under the color of state law when he gave an order to diagnose Plaintiff, prescribed him mental health medication, and instructed Nurses Rodney and Kaitlin and Officer Bradley to carry out his order and treat Plaintiff. ECF No. 1 at 6. Defendants, however, are employees of Mcleod Behavioral Health Services which is a “locally owned and managed, not-for-profit healthcare system.”Because the only information Plaintiff provided about Defendants' employment is they work for a privately-owned health care facility, Plaintiff has failed to establish Defendants are state actors. Accordingly, Plaintiff's excessive force claim should be summarily dismissed.
See https://www.mcleodhealth.org/about-us/.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued on May 3, 2024, the undersigned provided Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his Complaint and further warned Plaintiff that if he failed to timely file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed without leave for further amendment. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the time provided. Accordingly, in addition to the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
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).