Mouzon v. Metts et al

Filing 52

ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendation. It is ordered that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant James Metts are dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/18/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Robbie Mouzon,
Plaintiff,
v.
James Metts, Sheriff; James
Clawson, Officer; Sgt. Hair; and
Aubrey Kelly; individually and in
their official capacities,
Defendants.

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

Civil Action No.: 1:13-cv-00818-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Robbie Mouzon, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed this action
alleging that the above-captioned Defendants violated his constitutional rights. The matter is now
before the Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges.1 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant James Metts without prejudice and without issuance of
service of process for failing to state a claim.
Plaintiff, who is detained at the Lexington County Detention Center, filed this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 in March 2013. Compl., ECF No. 1. He alleges that Defendant Metts failed to
properly supervise his staff, who violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights when they used excessive
force and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.2 The Magistrate Judge issued her R&R
on June 20, 2013, recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Metts
1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling.
2
Because the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relates only to Defendant Metts, a discussion of
the facts pertaining to the other Defendants is unnecessary. Moreover, because the facts are
adequately stated by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, which the Court adopts, the Court need not
elaborate any further.

for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. R&R 5, ECF No. 19. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
R&R. Pl.’s Objs., ECF No. 23.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R&R 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).
The right to de novo review may be waived by the failure to file timely objections. Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court need not conduct a de novo review when a
party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific
error in the [M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, in the absence
of objections to the R&R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). However, in the absence of
objections, the Court must “ ‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.’ ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against only Defendant
Metts. R&R 4–5.

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge notes that Plaintiff’s only allegations

concerning Defendant Metts are that he was “legally responsible for the operation and all actions of
his employees,” “was on duty at any and all times,” and “did not act or investigate” the allegations.
Id. at 4; Compl. 2, 10. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations are
insufficient to state a supervisory claim under § 1983 against Defendant Metts. R&R 4. In his

2

objections, Plaintiff incorporates additional facts, contending ultimately that Defendant Metts
“should not be dismissed due to the fact that his officers are his responsibility.” Plaintiff argues that
he should not be “at fault” because “the supervisors involved failed their duties and didn’t notify
Sheriff Metts.” Id. at 3.
First, as to the new facts Plaintiff alleges in his objections, the Court notes that Plaintiff
cannot use his objections to plead new claims or cure the factual defects of his existing claims
against Defendant Metts. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (providing that objections must be to the
“proposed findings and recommendations” of the Magistrate Judge); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)
(same); cf. United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th Cir. 1992) (noting that it is a district
court’s duty to review “all arguments . . . regardless of whether they were raised before the
magistrate” (emphasis added)).

Second, Plaintiff appears to concede in his objections that

Defendant Metts was unaware of the actions that led to Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional injury.
Without the requisite knowledge of his subordinates’ actions, Defendant Metts cannot be held liable
individually as a supervisor. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009) (“[E]ach
Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.”);
Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 221 (4th Cir. 1999) (“A plaintiff must show actual or constructive
knowledge of a risk of constitutional injury, deliberate indifference to that risk, and an affirmative
causal link between the supervisor’s inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the
plaintiff.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As such, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is
proper, and Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s complaint, the
R&R, objections to the R&R, and applicable law.

3

For the reasons stated above and by the

Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant James Metts are
DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance of service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
October 18, 2013

4