Bryant v. Thompson et al

Filing 7

ORDER AND NOTICE Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his 1 complaint by filing an amended complaint by May 11, 2020, along with any appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint rep laces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to cure the deficiencies identified above, the undersigned will recommend to the district court that the claims be dismissed without leave for further amendment. (Specific Document due by 5/11/2020.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 4/20/2020. (lbak)

1:20-cv-01481-SAL-SVH

Date Filed 04/20/20

Entry Number 7

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jeffery J. Bryant,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Phillip E. Thompson, Sheriff in his )
official capacity; J. Reuben Long )
Detention Center,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)

C/A No.: 1:20-1481-SAL-SVH

ORDER AND NOTICE

Jeffery J. Bryant (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Phillip E.
Thompson and J. Reuben Long Detention Center (“Detention Center”)
(collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. 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.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges that on January 27, 2020, he slipped and fell while

incarcerated at Detention Center. [ECF No. 1 at 5]. He claims there was no
sign warning the floor was wet. Id. He alleges his lower back is hurt and that

1:20-cv-01481-SAL-SVH

Date Filed 04/20/20

Entry Number 7

Page 2 of 6

he has a knot the size of a tennis ball on his upper shoulder. Id. at 6. He states
he was provided muscle relaxers for seven days, but is now only provided
ibuprofen. Id. He requests treatment from an outside medical provider and
$140,000 for future treatment. Id.
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
2

1:20-cv-01481-SAL-SVH

Date Filed 04/20/20

Entry Number 7

Page 3 of 6

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 that 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.

Sheriff Thompson

Plaintiff names Sheriff Thompson as a defendant but does not state any
allegations against Thompson. To the extent Thompson is sued in his capacity
as Sheriff or related to his responsibility for Detention Center, Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim under § 1983. The doctrine of supervisory liability is
generally inapplicable to § 1983 suits, such that an employer or supervisor is
not liable for the acts of his employees, absent an official policy or custom that
results in illegal action. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.
658, 694 (1978); Fisher v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Authority, 690 F.2d
1133, 1142–43 (4th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court explains that “[b]ecause
vicarious liability is inapplicable to Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must
plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own
3

1:20-cv-01481-SAL-SVH

Date Filed 04/20/20

Entry Number 7

Page 4 of 6

individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676; see

Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372–74 (4th Cir. 1984) (finding 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).
2.

Detention Center

It is well-settled that only persons may act under color of state law;
therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a person. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983; Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)
(noting that for purposes of § 1983, a person includes individuals and bodies
politic and corporate). Courts have held that inanimate objects such as
buildings, facilities, and grounds are not considered a person and do not act
under color of state law. See Nelson v. Lexington Cnty. Det. Ctr., No. 8:102988-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”). In this case,
Plaintiff names Detention Center, which is a facility used primarily to house
detainees awaiting trial in state court. Because Detention Center is not a
person amenable to suit under § 1983, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s
complaint be summarily dismissed.

4

1:20-cv-01481-SAL-SVH

3.

Date Filed 04/20/20

Entry Number 7

Page 5 of 6

Negligence
To the extent Plaintiff claims Defendants were negligent, related either

to his fall or subsequent treatment, his claims must fail. The law is well settled
that a claim of negligence is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Daniels

v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 335–36 n.3 (1986); Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73 (4th
Cir. 1995) (noting that Daniels bars an action under § 1983 for negligent
conduct).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT
Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an
amended complaint by May 11, 2020, along with any appropriate service
documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint replaces the original
complaint and should be complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier,
238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, an amended pleading
ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint,
the undersigned will conduct screening of the amended complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
cure the deficiencies identified above, the undersigned will recommend to the

5

1:20-cv-01481-SAL-SVH

Date Filed 04/20/20

Entry Number 7

Page 6 of 6

district court that the claims be dismissed without leave for further
amendment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 20, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

6