Opinion
Civil Action No. 6:15-4147-TMC-KFM
10-20-2015
Patrick Michael Lynch, # 362369, Plaintiff, v. State Accident Fund; Trenton C.I.; S.C.D.C; State of S.C., Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The plaintiff is an inmate at the Trenton Correctional Institution. In the above-captioned case, the plaintiff has brought suit against the South Carolina State Accident Fund, the Trenton Correctional Institution, the South Carolina Department of Corrections, and the State of South Carolina. The plaintiff suffered the loss of the tip of his left index finger in a carpentry class (doc. 1 at 2-3). The plaintiff states that his medical bills and "meds" are being paid for by workman's compensation (id. at 4). The plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel and help from this federal court (id. at 5).
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se complaint and attachments pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiff is a pro se litigant, and thus his pleadings are accorded liberal construction. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 90-95 (2007)(per curiam). When a federal court is evaluating a pro se complaint or petition, the plaintiff's or petitioner's allegations are assumed to be true. Merriweather v. Reynolds, 586 F. Supp. 2d 548, 554 (D.S.C. 2008). Even under this less stringent standard, the complaint is subject to summary dismissal. 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).
The Trenton Correctional Institution is subject to summary dismissal because it is not "person" subject to suit under Section 1983. Inanimate objects - such as buildings, facilities, and grounds - do not act under color of state law. Hence, the Trenton Correctional Institution is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Jones v. Lexington Cnty. Det. Ctr., 586 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (D.S.C. 2008) (collecting cases). Therefore, the Trenton Correctional Institution is entitled to summary dismissal as a party defendant.
Three defendants are immune from suit. The South Carolina State Accident Fund, the South Carolina Department of Corrections, and the State of South Carolina are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, which divests this court of jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought against the State of South Carolina or its integral parts, such as a state agency or department. See, e.g., Fed. Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 744-45 (2002); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (although express language of Eleventh Amendment only forbids suits by citizens of other States against a State, Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a State filed by its own citizens); and Belcher v. South Carolina Bd. of Corr., 460 F. Supp. 805, 808-09 (D.S.C. 1978).
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the district court summarily dismiss the above-captioned case without prejudice and without service of process. The plaintiff's attention is directed to the Notice on the next page. October 20, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
s/ Kevin F. McDonald
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The plaintiff is advised that he 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 of Court
United States District Court
300 East Washington Street — Room 239
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
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).