Abney v. Hunt et al

Filing 24

ORDER accepting the 19 Report and Recommendation and dismissing Plaintiff's 1 complaint with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Terry L. Wooten on 11/17/2022. (dist)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Clarence Abney,

Case No. 1:21-cv-3063-TLW

PLAINTIFF
v.
Aiken County Sheriff Mike Hunt;
Captain Gallum; Head Nurse Sue
Ledbetter; Lt. Butler; John Hardy;
Aiken County Detention Center; Aiken
County Sheriff Department; Aiken
Standard Newspaper; Google, and
Officer Bowman,

Order

DEFENDANTS

Clarence Abney (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. On September 22, 2021,
Plaintiff filed his original complaint against Aiken County Sheriff Mike Hunt,
Captain Gallum, John Hardy, and Head Nurse Sue Leddbetter. ECF No. 1.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during his
arrest and subsequent incarceration at the Aiken County Detention Center (“ACDC”).
Id.
Plaintiff’s complaint was referred to the Honorable Shiva H. Hodges, United
States Magistrate Judge, for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 36b(b)(1)(B). The day
after Plaintiff filed his complaint, the magistrate judge issued a proper form order,
ECF No. 5, informing Plaintiff that specific steps needed to be taken in order for his
complaint to be served on named Defendants. Additionally, the proper form order
Page 1 of 4

instructed Plaintiff to keep to Clerk of Court advised in writing of his address so that
orders, deadlines, and other matters would be received by Plaintiff. Id. at 3.
On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding ADSC,
Google, The Aiken Standard newspaper, the Aiken County Sherriff’s Department
(“ACSD”), and Officer Bowman as defendants. ECF No. 9. As noted in the Report,
Plaintiff alleges assault, deprivation of mental health medication, deprivation of
certain meals, and deprivation of proper light fixtures, deprivation of recreation time.
ECF Nos. 9 at 9, 19 at 2. Plaintiff makes no factual allegations in connection with
these claims. They are simply listed in the amended complaint as the magistrate
judge states. This was the basis to require Plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. No amended complaint was filed.
After Plaintiff filed his amended complaint, the magistrate judge issued a
second proper form order, ECF No. 14, and an order and notice, ECF No. 15, advising
Plaintiff that his as-filed amended complaint was subject to summary dismissal. The
magistrate judge echoed the necessary requirements for service stated in the first
proper form order and noted that Plaintiff’s complaint was subject to summary
dismissal because (1) Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim as to
Defendants Butler, Hardy, Ledbetter, Gallum, Hunt, and Bowman because the
complaint does not specifically allege any constitutional violations committed by the
individual defendants; (2) Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim against ACDC
and ACSD because they are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983, and (3)
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a § 1983 claim against either Google or the Aiken

Page 2 of 4

Standard because these entities do not act under the color of state law. ECF No. 15
at 4–6. The magistrate judge gave Plaintiff until October 29, 2021 to bring his
complaint into proper form by filing an amended complaint and providing the
appropriate documents necessary for service. ECF Nos. 14 &15. Plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint.
The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed by the magistrate judge. ECF No. 19. In the Report,
the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without
prejudice for the reasons stated in the order and notice along with Plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute. Id. at 3–8.
Furthermore, the Report notes that Plaintiff was released from custody
without providing a forwarding address. Id. at 2–3; ECF No. 17–1. The magistrate
judge further notes that the Defendants do not “have any means of contacting
[Plaintiff] concerning his case. She also notes that Plaintiff has not provided the court
of any change of address. Id. at 5. Accordingly, she concludes that “it appears to the
court that he wishes to abandon this action.” Id. The magistrate judge further
recommends that dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. This Court has no basis to
conclude otherwise. Additionally, Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report.
This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Page 3 of 4

In the absence of objections to the Report, the Court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “a district court need not conduct a de novo 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.’” 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 Court has carefully reviewed the Report. For the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge, the Report, ECF No. 19, is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF
No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge
November 17, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 4 of 4