Bates v. SCDC et al

Filing 67

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation 62 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without service on Defendants. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 11/1/2012. (mcot, ) (Main Document 67 replaced on 11/1/2012) (mcot, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SCDC;
)
SCDMH;
)
Mr. Alan Wilson, Attorney General;
)
Dr. Peggy Wadman;
)
Holly Scatura; and
)
GEO CRCC,
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
Denny Rogers Bates, #261356,

C/A No.: 4:11-cv-03140-GRA-TER

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for review of United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III’s Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) of the
District of South Carolina, and filed on October 19, 2012. Plaintiff Denny Rogers
Bates, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC)
proceeding pro se, filed this action on November 11, 2011, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. ECF No. 1. After being ordered to bring his complaint into proper form, Plaintiff
amended his complaint. ECF No. 60. Service on the Defendants in this case has not
been authorized. See ECF No. 58.
Under established procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge Rogers
made a careful review of the pro se complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends that this Court summarily dismiss the

Page 1 of 4

Amended Complaint in this case without prejudice and without service on
Defendants. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R & R on October 31, 2012. ECF
No. 64. For the reasons discussed herein, this Court adopts the magistrate judge’s
recommendation in its entirety and summarily dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint without prejudice and without service on Defendants.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff brings this claim pro se. This Court is required to construe pro se
pleadings liberally. Such pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). This
Court is charged with liberally construing a pleading filed by a pro se litigant to allow
for the development of a potentially meritorious claim. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S.
364, 365 (1982). A court may not construct the plaintiff's legal arguments for him,
Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.1993), nor is a district court required to
recognize “obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted efforts to
unravel them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir.1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
Background
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Edisto Unit of the Broad Correctional
Institution, part of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) prison
system which is presently under the control of the South Carolina Department of
Mental Health (“SCDMH”) as housing for persons such as Plaintiff who were
designated sexually violent predators (“SVPs”) as a result of past criminal
convictions. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Edisto Unit is unfit

Page 2 of 4

for human occupancy to the extent that being housed there virtually without hope of
being released into society results in cruel and unusual punishment. He alleges that
the facility is overcrowded, insect-infested, and in need of routine maintenance such
as painting and general cleaning. He also alleges that the food provided to SVPs is
served cold and served using unhygienic methods. Mainly, however, Plaintiff
complains about what he describes as a policy of not releasing SVPs back into
society even after they complete the available treatment programs and keeping them
locked up indefinitely. He seeks millions of dollars in damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief.
Discussion
Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint in this case without prejudice and without service on
Defendants. See Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 62.
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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may
also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
instructions." Id. Furthermore, in the absence of specific objections to the Report

Page 3 of 4

and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting
the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that his objections are
non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation, or merely restate his claims.

To the extent that Plaintiff

attempts to make new factual allegations in his objection memorandum, such
allegations should be made in an amended complaint.
After a review of the record, this Court finds that the magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice and without service on Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 1, 2012
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Plaintiff has the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date
of the entry of this Order, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Failure to meet this deadline, as modified by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, will waive the right to appeal.

Page 4 of 4