Young v. Taylor et al

Filing 5

ORDER AND NOTICE Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint by February 7, 2023, along with any appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint replaces 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 2/7/2023.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 1/17/2023. (lbak)

1:23-cv-00098-JFA-SVH

Date Filed 01/17/23

Entry Number 5

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Matthew Alexander Young,
Plaintiff,
v.
Hampton Taylor, Major of
Operations and Jane Doe, Director
of Medical,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:23-98-JFA-SVH

ORDER AND NOTICE

Matthew Alexander Young (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against alleging violations of
constitutional rights while housed at Lexington County Detention Center. He
sues Hampton Taylor, Major of Operations and Jane Doe, Director of Medical
(collectively “Defendants”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ.
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (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 on September 26, 2022 at around 11:30 pm, he was

assaulted by three to four inmates. [ECF No. 1 at 5]. He alleges there was no
guard to prevent such events. Id. He alleges he suffered head trauma, a black

1:23-cv-00098-JFA-SVH

Date Filed 01/17/23

Entry Number 5

Page 2 of 6

eye, and a broken tooth. Id. He claims he was only seen by medical once with
no follow up treatment or wound care. Id. at 6.
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).
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 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). In evaluating
a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s 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
2

1:23-cv-00098-JFA-SVH

Date Filed 01/17/23

Entry Number 5

Page 3 of 6

pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should
do so. 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).
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). Although the court must liberally
construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it
clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a
claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677‒78 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the 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. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678‒79.
B.

Analysis
1.

Failure to Protect

To establish a claim for failure to protect, an inmate must show: (1) a
“serious or significant physical or emotional injury” and (2) that prison officials
exhibited deliberate indifference to inmate health and safety. De’Lonta v.

Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
3

1:23-cv-00098-JFA-SVH

Date Filed 01/17/23

Entry Number 5

Page 4 of 6

omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, a prison official must “know of and
disregard an objectively serious . . . risk of harm.” Id. “[T]he official must be
both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a possibility
of harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
Here, Plaintiff has provided no information that Taylor was aware of any risk
of harm to Plaintiff prior to the assault. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim for failure to protect him from the assault.
2.

No Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff’s complaint contains no factual allegations against Defendants.
To the extent Defendants are sued only in their official capacities, 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
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
4

1:23-cv-00098-JFA-SVH

Date Filed 01/17/23

Entry Number 5

Page 5 of 6

pervasive, unreasonable risk of harm from a specified source and fails to take
corrective action as a result of deliberate indifference or tacit authorization).
Accordingly, Defendants are subject to summary dismissal.
3.

Negligence

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim of negligence, 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); Davidson v. Cannon,
474 U.S. 344, 347–48 (1986); Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73 (4th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, any claim of negligence would be more appropriately brought in
state court.
NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT
Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an
amended complaint by February 7, 2023, 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

1:23-cv-00098-JFA-SVH

Date Filed 01/17/23

Entry Number 5

Page 6 of 6

district court that the claims be dismissed without leave for further
amendment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 17, 2023
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

6