Opinion
C/A No.: 5:19-2345-MGL-KDW
09-12-2019
Patrick LeVar Smith, Plaintiff, v. Southern Health Partners; Anderson Oconee Pickens Mental Health; Anderson County Detention Center; Katherine Morris; Amber B. Brown; Registered Nurse Kerri; and Registered Nurse Allison, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMENDATION
Patrick LeVar Smith ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint alleging his civil rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Anderson County Detention Center ("ACDC"). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (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 the district judge dismiss the complaint. I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges he was arrested on June 18, 2018. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff states the
[n]ext day after I wrote by Kiosk request to see staff/medical for the urine burning feeling/open pink areas (sores) open flesh spots the size of (b-bs) or the open to eyes of RN. Amber B. Brown, R.N. Katherine Morris, R.N. Kerri, and officer Reed, a male officer in the nurse station on shift. To secure the female R.N. nurse team.Id. (errors in original). Plaintiff claims he also requested to see mental health as he was "very sad," but he was denied treatment. Id. Plaintiff also claims he asked to be moved to a "population cell" so he could have access to the telephone. Id. Plaintiff alleges other inmates who asked to be moved were moved two days to a week later, but he sat in C Pod for 10 months. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 4.
Something we do not treat, or want to be responsible for is an trip to DHEC Said, by Nurse Team. Southern Health Partners don't hold us responsible for whoever gave you a STD, and we are not able to track down who gave you a STD.
On August 23, 2019, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. ECF No. 9. The order further advised Plaintiff that he had 21 days to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response. 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 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
1. Improper Defendants
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). It is well-settled that only "persons" may act under color of state law, and, therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a "person." See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). In this case, Plaintiff names Southern Health Partners, Anderson Oconee Pickens Mental Health, and ACDC as defendants, however, these Defendants are not persons amenable to suit under § 1983. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); 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"); Harden v. Green, 27 F. App'x 173, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding that the medical department of a prison is not a person pursuant to § 1983); Dalton v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr., C/A No. 8:09-260-CMC-BHH, 2009 WL 823931, at *2 (D.S.C. March 26, 2009) (dismissing the medical staff of SCDC and Prison Health Services as defendants because they were not persons). Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Southern Health Partners, Anderson Oconee Pickens Mental Health, and ACDC are subject to summary dismissal.
2. Insufficient Factual Allegations
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atlantic 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, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Plaintiff's complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations of constitutional wrongdoing or discriminatory actions attributable to Morris, Brown, Kerri, and Allison. Although Plaintiff indicates that he was denied medical and mental health treatment, he fails to identify which defendants were involved with this denial. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting "[s]weeping conclusory allegations against a prison official will not suffice"; an inmate must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's participation). Accordingly, Plaintiff's civil rights claims against these defendants should be summarily dismissed. III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued August 23, 2019, 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. The undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015)).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. September 12, 2019
Florence, South Carolina
/s/
Kaymani D. West
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
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).