Frazier v. Hunter et al

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff's motions, the court agrees with the Report's recommend ation the matter should be summarily dismissed. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This matter is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and without leave for further amendment. Plaintiff's pending motions (ECF Nos. 5, 13, 16, 20) are dismissed as moot and the motion to amend (ECF No. 21) is denied as futile. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 06/04/2024. (cpri)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Johnnie Frazier,

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-1124-CMC
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Lt. June; Lt. Mack; and Srg. Belton; A/W
Commander; Cpt. Maurice Hunter; Lt.
Williams; Miss Highlam; and Mackey,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. He contends he has been mistreated and targeted in the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) through poison placed in his food and direct attacks
in his cell or yard, at the direction of the Commander. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings.
On April 17, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
recommending Plaintiff’s Complaint be summarily dismissed without leave for further
amendment, and that all pending motions be dismissed as moot. ECF No. 14. The Magistrate
Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and
the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff filed a motion for depositions (ECF No.
16), a motion for injunction (ECF No. 20), and a motion to amend (ECF No. 21). In addition, just
prior to the issuance of the Report, he filed a motion to give sample for poison test. ECF No. 13.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the

court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection
is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made
by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“in the absence of a timely filed objection, 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.”) (citation omitted).
The Report recommends Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed because no allegations were
included against Defendants June, Hunter, Williams, Highlam, and Mackey, and because
insufficient allegations were made against the Commander, Mack, and Belton. ECF No. 14 at 4-5.
Plaintiff did not file formal objections, but instead filed a series of motions. First, he filed
a motion asking the court to order a test to “see how much poison I’ve had in my body so I can
detox or whatever I had or have to do to get better.” ECF No. 13 at 1. His motion for deposition
requests “the court to take depositions for the defendants in this case” and includes a list of
questions he wished to be asked of them. ECF No. 16. He notes he is attempting to get an attorney
to help him with this case, but he believes his mail is being held and SCDC staff will not let
Plaintiff call or see the attorney. Id. His next motion requests an “injunction for chemical analysis
checking for poisons” and cites “failure to protect or deliberate indifference.” ECF No. 20.

2

Finally, he filed a motion to amend with additional details. ECF No. 21. He asserts the
Commander was called to testify in a previous lawsuit filed by Plaintiff and “held a grudge”
because of that. Plaintiff alleges the Commander “started persecuting me by getting the inmates to
try to kill me” and had to fight the whole dorm off in August 2023. He then asserts Sargent Belton
stood at the door of his cell and stated “I’ll spray him you hold him and the other one she told to
stab me.” Id. at 2. He stated he broke the windows, toilet, and sink in his cell so he was moved to
another dorm. He alleges the School Teacher Highlam attempted to poison Plaintiff with a syringe
and also the inmates were putting poison in his food with the help of kitchen supervisor Lt. Mack.
He alleges “they” gave him arsenic, strychnine, rat poison, and antifreeze to try to kill him. He was
then moved to a dorm with Lt. June, where she was “openly declaring” she had benefits for anyone
who would “air him out for the Commander.” Id. at 4. Sgt. Douglas unassigned his tablet and gave
it to another inmate, and Captain Hunter turned Plaintiff’s phone off so he couldn’t call home for
help. Id.
The court has reviewed the Complaint de novo, and agrees the allegations regarding the
named Defendants are insufficient, as they are conclusory and lack supporting facts. Plaintiff has
provided only general dates for his allegations. Although there are more details regarding which
of the Defendants participated in the alleged actions against him, and how, his allegations are hard
to follow and appear nonsensical at times. As such, it appears his motion to amend is futile. See
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999).
After considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff’s motions, the court agrees with the Report’s recommendation the
3

matter should be summarily dismissed. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in
this Order. This matter is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and without leave for
further amendment. Plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 5, 13, 16, 20) are dismissed as moot
and the motion to amend (ECF No. 21) is denied as futile.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
June 4, 2024

4