Martin v. Downing et al

Filing 15

ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/31/2017. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Anthony D. Martin,
Plaintiff,
V.

Kenneth Downing, Captain; Mickey
Boland, Lt.; M.D. Scott Alkia; and
John Doe,

Defendants.

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

Case No 1:17-cv-852-RMG

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R. ") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice and without
issuance of service of process. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, this Court adopts
the R. & R. as the order of the Court. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance of service of process.
I.

Background
On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff slipped on water that had leaked into his cell from the

cell above him and injured his neck, back, and shoulder. Plaintiff was transported to a local
hospital for treatment. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants
seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with this accident.
(Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2.)
II.

Legal Standard
a. Pro Se Pleadings

This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the
development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v.
-1-

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the

Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal
claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none
exists. Weller v. Dep 't ofSocial Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent litigant may 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. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). 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).
b. Magistrate's Report and Recommendation
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). This
Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions." Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "a district court need
not conduct a de nova 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," see Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).

-2-

III.

Discussion
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff has, at most, stated a claim for negligence

that is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 12 at 3.) Plaintiff has not objected to the
Magistrate's R. & R. This Court finds that the Magistrate has correctly applied the controlling
law to the facts of this case. Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for
unconstitutional conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 12) as the order of

the Court. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of
process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

e gel
1strict Court Judge
May 3 { , 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-3-