Opinion
C/A 1:21-2212-SAL-PJG
03-08-2022
Eric Alan Sanders, Plaintiff, v. Aiken Regional Medical Center, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Eric Alan Sanders, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1986 and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182. By order dated August 13, 2021, the court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the court that would warrant summary dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to § 1915. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Having reviewed the Amended Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes the Amended Complaint still fails to state a viable claim and should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and issuance of service of process.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In the original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged he was admitted to the Aiken Regional Medical Center for mental health treatment in May 2021. Plaintiff alleged that staff at the hospital injected him with sedatives that caused him to be “woozy” and fall in the shower, injuring Plaintiff's back and shoulders. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff also alleged that he fell multiple other times in the shower in the same week due to water overflowing in the shower, causing further injuries. Plaintiff claimed the hospital was negligent, careless, reckless, grossly negligent, willful and wanton because of Plaintiff's race, gender, and mental disability. Plaintiff claimed the hospital's treatment of him violated the ADA and his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds more detail about his stay at Aiken Regional Medical Center. Plaintiff indicates he has bipolar depression, and therefore, he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Plaintiff indicates he was hospitalized pursuant to an order of the Barnwell County Probate Court pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 44-17-410. Plaintiff indicates that patients at Aiken Regional Medical Center awaiting screening for their mental disabilities are segregated from patients with physical disabilities and denied private bathrooms with safety measures such as handrails and a bathtub. Plaintiff claims that on May 20, 2021, nurses injected Plaintiff with a sedative and, upon waking up, Plaintiff attempted to shower but due to drowsiness from the sedative he fell in the shower. Plaintiff further indicates he was readmitted to the hospital on June 8, 2021, again by order of the Barnwell County Probate Court. Plaintiff claims that despite warning the nurse on duty about excessive water accumulating on the communal shower floor, the water was not cleaned up and Plaintiff again fell, causing injuries.
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff also clarifies that he brings a claim against the Aiken Regional Medical Center pursuant to the Fourth Amendment because he was restrained against his will. He further clarifies that his ADA claim is based on the Aiken Regional Medical Center's segregation of mental health patients in rooms that do not have private baths or showers.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Amended Complaint. The Amended 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. This statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “is frivolous or malicious, ” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
To state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, 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 cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
B. Analysis
The court finds that despite having availed himself of the opportunity to cure the deficiencies previously identified by the court, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint should nonetheless be summarily dismissed. Initially, the court concludes that nothing in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint cures the deficiencies the court identified regarding Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, & 1986 because Plaintiffs claims are still not based on a contract and Plaintiff does not name a state actor amenable to suit. Therefore, the court adopts its analysis in its August 13 order and finds that Plaintiff still fails to state a claim pursuant to those statutes upon which relief can be granted.
As to Plaintiffs ADA claim, the only relief sought by Plaintiff is damages, but such a remedy is not available under Title III of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188; Thomas v. The Salvation Army S. Territory, 841 F.3d 632, 638 (4th Cir. 2016) (“Title III of the ADA . . . provides a private right of action for injunctive relief but no right of action for monetary relief.”). Therefore, Plaintiff still fails to state a Title III ADA claim upon which relief can be granted.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court recommends that this case be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
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).