From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Anderson Cnty. Det. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 13, 2015
C/A No.: 1:15-2724-RBH-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2015)

Opinion

C/A No.: 1:15-2724-RBH-SVH

08-13-2015

Billy Ray Smith, Plaintiff, v. Anderson County Detention Center, Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Billy Ray Smith ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a pre-trial detainee incarcerated at Anderson County Detention Center ("ACDC"). He filed his complaint, which is construed as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that ACDC denied him prescribed medications. ACDC is the sole defendant in this action.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the district judge dismiss the complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff previously filed a case concerning ACDC's staff depriving him of medication, although ACDC was not a defendant. See Smith v. Southern Health Partners, C/A No.: 1:14-3441-RBH-SVH (Aug. 27, 2014) ("Smith I"). The Honorable R. Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge, granted summary judgment for defendants in Smith I on August 3, 2015. Smith I at ECF No. 36.

Plaintiff alleges ACDC has repeatedly denied him medications that were prescribed for him. [ECF No. 1 at 3]. Plaintiff claims he has six years of records showing medications used prior to his incarceration and states ACDC "has only allowed six breathing treatments for COPD and Bulis Emphy[s]ema despite [his] request and need for more." Id. Plaintiff requests that Defendant provide him the medications and breathing treatments he was receiving prior to his incarceration. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary relief. Id. at 4. 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

It is well-settled that only persons may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a person. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978) (noting that for purposes of § 1983, a person includes individuals and bodies politic and corporate). Courts have held that inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds are not considered a person and do not act under color of state law. See Nelson v. Lexington Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 8:10-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Lexington County Detention Center, "as a building and not a person, is amenable to suit under § 1983"). In this case, Plaintiff names the ACDC, which is a facility used primarily to house detainees awaiting trial in state court. Because the ACDC is not a person amenable to suit under § 1983, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's complaint be summarily dismissed. III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the court dismiss this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. August 13, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

/s/

Shiva V. Hodges

United States Magistrate Judge

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

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. 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).


Summaries of

Smith v. Anderson Cnty. Det. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aug 13, 2015
C/A No.: 1:15-2724-RBH-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Smith v. Anderson Cnty. Det. Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:Billy Ray Smith, Plaintiff, v. Anderson County Detention Center, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Date published: Aug 13, 2015

Citations

C/A No.: 1:15-2724-RBH-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2015)