Rogers v. Greenville County Detention Center et al

Filing 12

ORDER and OPINION: The Court adopts the R & R as the Order of the Court and this case is dismissed without prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the file. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/21/22.(ltap, )

2:22-cv-00078-RMG

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 12

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Quincey Rogers,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Greenville County Detention Center,
)
Mr. Vandermoss; and Mr. Hollister, )
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-0078

ORDER AND OPINION

This is an action filed by Quincey Rogers, a state detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis bringing claims against the Greenville County Detention Center and jail administrators
Vandermoss and Hollister pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending the Court summarily dismiss this action without
issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 9). For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the
R & R as the Order of the Court.
The Magistrate Judge previously issued an Order that gave Plaintiff an opportunity to cure
deficiencies with the complaint and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twentyone days. (Dkt. No. 5). The order warned Plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint or cure
the pleading deficiencies within the time prescribed by the order would result in summary
dismissal. (Dkt. No. 5 at 7). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended pleading and the time
frame to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Order lapsed. On February 18, 2022, the Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending the Court summarily
dismiss this action without prejudice and without further leave to amend. Plaintiff has not filed
objections.
1

2:22-cv-00078-RMG

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 12

Page 2 of 3

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court that has no presumptive
weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R Plaintiff specifically
objects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Where Plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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) (internal quotation omitted). “Moreover,
in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation.” Wilson v. S.C. Dept of Corr., No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG, 2015 WL
1124701, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 12, 2015). See also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th
Cir.1983). Plaintiff filed objections in this case, and the R & R is reviewed for clear error.  
Upon a review of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, the Court finds the Magistrate
Judge comprehensively analyzed Plaintiff’s claims to correctly determine dismissal is warranted
because Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim under § 1983.
To state a claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege two
essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
violated; and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of
law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Inanimate objects are not persons for purposes of § 1983 actions and therefore, Greenville
County Detention Center is not a “person” for purposes of § 1983. Sumpter v. Georgetown Cty.
Det. Ctr., No. 0:20-cv-1770-JMC-PJG, 2020 WL 3060395, at * 2 (D.S.C. June 8, 2020); Studley

2

2:22-cv-00078-RMG

Date Filed 11/21/22

Entry Number 12

Page 3 of 3

v. Watford, No. 3:16-cv-439-JMC-PJG, 2016 WL 2893157, at *3 (D.S.C. Apr. 15, 2016), adopted,
2016 WL 2853546 (D.S.C. May 16, 2016); see also Barnes v. Bakersville Corr. Ctr. Med. Staff,
No. 3:07-cv-195. 2008 WL 2564779 (E.D. Va. June 25, 2008) (noting that the plaintiff must name
specific staff members to state a claim against a “person” as required under § 1983). Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s claims against Greenville County
Detention Center are subject to summary dismissal.
With respect to the individual Defendants, a person acting under the color of state law can
be held liable under § 1983 only if he or she was personally involved in the privation of the
plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F. 3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017). The
Magistrate Judge correctly noted that the Complaint is unclear as to Defendants Vandermoss’s and
Hollister’s personal involvement in the purported deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Indeed, the only specific allegation against Defendant Vandermoss is that he released Plaintiff
from administrative segregation, and Defendant Hollister does not appear in the Complaint beyond
the Caption. Because Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege personal involvement, the Magistrate
judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Vandermoss and Hollister are
subject to summary dismissal.
Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to
close the file. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Richard M. Gergel
Richard M. Gergel
United States District Judge
November 21, 2022
Charleston, South Carolina

3