Kinloch v. South Carolina Department of Corrections
Filing
16
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 9 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker. The court summarily dismisses Plaintiff's § 1983 claim without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 7/9/2015.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Antonio Kinloch, # 219914,
Plaintiff,
vs.
South Carolina Department of Corrections,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 2:15-cv-01742-MBS-MGB
ORDER AND OPINION
Plaintiff Antonio Kinloch (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this
action against Defendant South Carolina Department of Corrections (“Defendant”) pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is an inmate in custody of Defendant, currently housed at the Lee Correctional
Institution, and serving a life sentence for a murder conviction in the Court of General Sessions for
Charleston County under Indictment No. 94-GS-10-3523. See ECF No. 9 at 1. At the time of the
alleged events, Plaintiff was housed variously at Lee Correctional Institution, Lieber Correctional
Institution, and Perry Correctional Institution. See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiff complains that
his constitutional rights were violated by the action and/or inaction of Defendant’s employees
related to Plaintiff’s altercation with a correctional officer, his safety with other inmates, and his
medical and mental health conditions. Id. Plaintiff argues that this behavior on the part of
Defendant’s employees constituted “deliberate indifference” resulting in “cruel and unusual
punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. ECF No. 1 at 2.1
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (2012) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), the
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for a Report and
Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint pursuant to the procedural
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012). The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation
on May 7, 2015. ECF No. 9. The Magistrate Judge determined that Defendant was not a proper
party for suit because of immunity conferred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 6. Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice
and without service of process. Id. at 7.
On May 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No.
14. The court considers Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation below.2
1
Plaintiff also contends that Defendant was grossly negligent. See ECF No. 1 at 10–11, ¶¶
37, 40. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff appears to state a claim under
the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (“SCTCA”). See ECF No. 1 at 5, 10–11, ¶¶ 2–5, 34–40.
Specifically, S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-60(25) provides that a governmental entity is liable
for loss resulting from the supervision, protection, control, confinement, or custody of an
inmate if conducted in a grossly negligent manner. To the extent Plaintiff alleges a state law
cause of action pursuant to SCTCA, the court would have supplemental jurisdiction over the
claim because it is part of the same case or controversy, arising from the common nucleus
of operative fact, as Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, because
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is summarily dismissed due to Defendant’s immunity under the
Eleventh Amendment, infra p. 3, the court declines jurisdiction over this claim and dismisses
the same without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
2
Plaintiff’s first three objections are to the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the facts as
alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s Complaint, however, fails not because of any facts
alleged therein, but because Plaintiff’s chosen defendant is protected from suit by the
Eleventh Amendment. The incorporation of the facts as alleged by Defendant in his
objections to the Report and Recommendation does not change this result.
2
II. Discussion
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The district court is obligated to conduct a de novo
review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made. The
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate
Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(2012).
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Defendant is immune from suit
under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff argues that the cases cited in the Report and
Recommendation in support of this conclusion are irrelevant to his complaint, do not support
dismissal, and are “frivolous to the facts of [his] case.” ECF No. 14 at 4. “The Eleventh Amendment
bars [suits against a State or its agencies] unless the State has waived its immunity or unless
Congress has exercised its undoubted power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override that
immunity.” Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (citations omitted); see
also U.S. Const. amend. XI. “Congress, in passing § 1983, had no intention to disturb the States’
Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Id. Further, “[t]he State of South Carolina has not consented to
suit in federal court.” See Curry v. South Carolina, 518 F. Supp. 2d 661, 666 (D.S.C. 2007). The
court concludes, therefore, that the South Carolina Department of Corrections, an agency of the State
of South Carolina, has immunity pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. See id.
3
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the court adopts and incorporates herein by reference the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court summarily dismisses Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim
without prejudice and without service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, S.C.
July 9, 2015
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?