Randolph v. Lawrence et al

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17 ). Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint (ECF No. 21 ) is DENIED AS FUTILE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 4/27/2017. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
JOSEPH THOMAS RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN LAWRENCE, AND LEON LOTT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 3:16-cv-03011-MBS

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Randolph (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint on
September 1, 2016, alleging a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Kevin
Lawrence, a Richland County Sheriff’s Deputy, and Leon Lott, Richland County Sheriff
(“Defendants”). ECF No. 1 at 5.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges false arrest and malicious prosecution arising from an arrest that occurred
during a traffic stop effectuated on or about May/June of 2013. ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Plaintiff
alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when: (1) drugs were allegedly planted on
him; (2) he was falsely charged with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, driving
under suspension, and possession of a stolen vehicle; and (3) he was subsequently incarcerated
for ninety days before the charges were dropped. Id. Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages for
pain and suffering, mental anguish, and emotional distress. Id. at 7. Plaintiff indicates that he is
suing Defendants in their official capacities only. ECF No. 1 at 3.

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(b)(2)(e), D.S.C., this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pretrial handling. On
November 18, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice. See ECF
No. 17; Brown v. Briscoe, 998 F.2d 201, 202-04 (4th Cir. 1993). The Magistrate Judge found
that Plaintiff’s claims for damages against Defendants in their official capacities are barred by
the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. ECF No. 53 at 2. Further, the
Magistrate Judge posits, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim against Defendants even if
Plaintiff had sued Defendants in their individual capacities. ECF No. 17 at 4.
On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. Plaintiff asserts that he was
unaware of the proper procedures required when filing suit. ECF No. 19 at 1. Specifically,
Plaintiff objects “to not having knowledge of the steps needed to be taken toward filing pro se
for litigation cases.” Id. Plaintiff continues, “I was told that by adding the ‘capacity’ and adding
their employment as Richland County that it would place (Richland County) as the Defendant as
well . . . ” Id. Plaintiff continues alleging that money was taken from him after he was charged
with PWID crack cocaine. Id. He says the money was later mailed back to him, but that the
Sheriff’s Department had complete knowledge that his money was seized. Id. at 2. Plaintiff then
continues making many of the arguments raised in his complaint, maintaining that he was falsely
imprisoned and that his constitutional rights were deprived by Defendants. Id. On December 8,
2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend or correct the complaint, requesting that Defendant Lott
be dismissed and that Richland County, South Carolina, be added as Defendant. ECF No. 21 at
1.

2

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). This court is charged with making a de
novo determination of any portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made.
However, the district court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir.
1982). 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).
II. DISCUSSION
Section 1983 allows plaintiffs to seek monetary damages from governmental officials
who have violated their constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, Section 1983
establishes liability against:
Every person who, under statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of
the United States or another person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.
Id.
A state cannot, without its consent, be sued by one of its own citizens in federal court.
See Edleman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). This immunity extends not only to the
states, but also “protects state agents and state instrumentalities” also known as “the arms of the
State.” Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 389-90 (4th Cir. 2013)(internal citation omitted). In
South Carolina, a county is considered an arm of the state, and is therefore barred from suit in
federal court. See S.C. Code Ann. § 4-1-10 (stating that counties are a “body politic and

3

corporate” to sue and be sued); Pennington v. Kershaw County, CA No. 3:12-1509-JFA-SVH,
2013 WL 2423120 at *4 (D.S.C. June 4, 2013) (applying S.C. Code Ann. §4-1-10 to the
Eleventh Amendment to determine a county cannot be sued).
The State of South Carolina has not consented to be sued in this case. S.C. Code Ann.
§15-78-20(e). Therefore, Plaintiff is barred from suing Defendants under the Eleventh
Amendment because he sought suit against Defendants in their official capacities. As the
Magistrate Judge notes, “because a county employee in his or her official capacity is deemed to
be the county itself, and therefore the state itself, this federal court is precluded from considering
an official capacity claim against such an employee.” ECF No. at 3.

1

As a secondary matter, Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint is futile. In his motion,
Plaintiff seeks to dismiss Sheriff Leon Lott as a Defendant and to add Richland County, South
Carolina as “head defendant.” Id. However, Plaintiff’s amendment is futile because Richland
County, like the current Defendants in their official capacities, is an arm of the state and cannot
be sued. See S.C. Code Ann. § 4-1-10.
III. CONCLUSION
After reviewing the entire record, the applicable law, the findings of the Magistrate
Judge, Plaintiff’s objections, and Plaintiff’s motion to amend, this court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint is DENIED AS FUTILE.

1

The Court declines to determine the viability of a suit against Defendant Lott individually as
Plaintiff only sued Defendants in their official capacity and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend seeks to
remove Defendant Lott from the case.
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge

Columbia, South Carolina
April 27, 2017

5