Holcomb v. Greenville County Detention Center

Filing 63

ORDER denying 38 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by Rabbi Dean Alton Holcomb. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 7/27/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Rabbi Dean Alton Holcomb,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lt. W. Kramer and Sgt. A. Chaudhary,
in their official capacity,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:14-3477-MGL-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff Rabbi Dean Alton Holcomb, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Greenville County Detention Center
(“GCDC”) in Greenville, South Carolina. He filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging that GCDC officers Lt. Kramer and Sgt. Chaudhary violated his
constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the
amended complaint. [ECF No. 38]. This matter was referred to the undersigned for all
pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
Plaintiff’s motion to amend seeks to add Major Stowers (“Stowers”) as a
defendant. In support of his motion, Plaintiff alleges that Stowers is the highestranking person at GCDC that Plaintiff has been able to contact and receive a reply.
[ECF No. 38 at 1]. He states that “Major Stowers has consistently refused to
acknowledge the fact that every meal served as ‘kosher’ has at least 1 item that
Stowers, Kramer, & Chaudhary have been informed as to being not kosher.” Id. at 2.

“[L]eave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a). “A motion to amend should be denied only when the amendment would
be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving
party, or the amendment would be futile.” HCMF Corp. v. Allen, 238 F.3d 273, 276
(4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). A 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678‒79 (2009).
Here, Plaintiff appears to seek to add Stowers on a supervisory liability theory.
Higher officials may be held liable for the acts of their subordinates if the official is
aware of a pervasive, unreasonable risk of harm from a specified source and fails to
take corrective action as a result of deliberate indifference or tacit authorization.
Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, Reed v. Slakan, 470 U.S.
1035 (1985). Liberally construing Plaintiff’s motion to amend, Plaintiff alleges that
Stowers is aware that his meals have one item that he does not consider kosher.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s motion to amend fails to state a cause of action against
Stowers for which relief can be granted. The fact that one item in his meal may not be
kosher, without more, at most constitutes negligence, but does not rise to the level of a
constitutional claim. See Lovelace v. Lee, 472 F.3d 174, 201 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding
that “negligent acts by officials causing unintended denials of religious rights do not
violate the Free Exercise Clause” of the Constitution). Plaintiff has not shown that

2

Stowers was aware of an unreasonable risk of harm to Plaintiff and has filed to take
corrective action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend [ECF No. 38] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 27, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3