Maloyd v. Aiken County Sheriff Office Detention Center et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, defendants "Aiken County Sheriff Office Detention Center" and "Aiken County Detention Center Medical Department" are dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 11/16/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Bernard Maloyd,
Plaintiff,
v.
Aiken County Sheriff Office Detention
Center; Aiken County Detention Center;
Aiken County Detention Center Dentist
(Dr. S. Taylor Garnett),
Defendants.
____________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 1:11-2298-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Bernard Maloyd, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming “dental and medical malpractice” against the defendants surrounding the plaintiff’s
July 2011 dental visit for a tooth extraction. The plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Aiken
County Detention Center. He seeks damages for pain and suffering.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that this court should summarily dismiss defendants
“Aiken County Sheriff Office Detention Center” and “Aiken County Detention Center
Medical Department” because they are not “persons” amenable to suit under § 1983. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific
objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, but has failed to do so. In the absence of specific objections to the Report
of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper and
incorporates the Report herein by reference. Accordingly, defendants “Aiken County Sheriff
Office Detention Center” and “Aiken County Detention Center Medical Department” are
dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. The Clerk shall return this file
to the Magistrate Judge who has authorized service of process upon defendant Dr. Garnett.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 16, 2011
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2