Robinson v. Florence County Police Department et al

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 11 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice as to Defendants F lorence County Police Department and Florence County Sheriffs Department. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that any other claims, aside from Plaintiff's claim for excessive force against Defendant Watts, are also dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 5/8/2015. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Paul D. Robinson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Florence County Police Department; )
Officer Jon Watts; and Florence )
County Sheriff Department,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-387-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Paul D. Robinson, (“Plaintiff”), a state detainee proceeding pro se, brought this
civil action against the above captioned Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 28,
2015. See Compl., ECF No. 1. This matter is before the Court after the issuance of the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West.1

See R & R,

ECF No. 11. In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Complaint be dismissed
without prejudice as to Defendants Florence County Police Department and Florence County
Sheriff Department, as well as to any claim other than excessive force against Defendant Watts.
See id. at 5–6. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R & R on February 25, 2015. See Pl.’s Objs.,
ECF No. 15.

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge’s review of Plaintiff's
complaint was conducted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the district court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the district court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The district
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
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 filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
[C]ourt to a specific error in the [M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence
of a specific objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.
2005).
DISCUSSION2
In the R & R, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff’s claims against the Florence County
Police Department and the Florence County Sheriff Department should be dismissed, as they are not
“persons” subject to suit under § 1983. See ECF No. 11 at 3–4. The Magistrate Judge also
recommended finding that no plausible claim under § 1983 had been stated against Defendant Watts
2

The facts of this case, including citations to the record, were completely and accurately set forth in
the Magistrate Judge’s R & R. See ECF No. 11 at 1–2. Briefly stated, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges
that Defendant Watts used excessive force against him in connection with an arrest and that he is
not being treated properly in the Florence County Detention Center (“FCDC”).
2

regarding Plaintiff’s treatment at the FCDC. See id. at 4. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that
Plaintiff has not alleged any personal involvement of Officer Watts in connection with the
conditions of his confinement at the FCDC. See id. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that, to the extent the Complaint could be liberally construed to state a claim for slander, that claim
be dismissed as the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. See id. at 4–5. As the
Magistrate Judge detailed, there is no diversity jurisdiction over this claim, and the Court lacks
supplemental jurisdiction over it due to the fact that it does not arise out of the same “common
nucleus of operative fact” as the only plausible federal claim (the excessive force claim). See id. at
5. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge explained that no plausible slander claim has been stated against
any of the Defendants, as Plaintiff does not detail who gave the allegedly false information to the
“News channel” and does not name the “News channel” as a Defendant. See id.
Plaintiff timely filed objections. In his objections, Plaintiff notes that he agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Defendant Watts took no part in how he is being treated in the FCDC. See
ECF No. 15 at 1. However, he reiterates that Defendant Watts did use excessive force against him.
See id. Petitioner then notes that the “News channel” is “News Channel 15.” See id. Petitioner
next explains that he included the Florence County Sheriff Department in his lawsuit because his
stay at the FCDC has been “unpleasant.” See id. He notes that there are so many correctional
officers involved that he can only put down the name of the facility. See id. Finally, he argues that
he named the Florence County Police Department as a Defendant because “John Watts ram me with
his car, another office kick me twice, then shot me.” See id. He asks that the Court not dismiss the
action and proceed in serving the parties. See id. Finally, he argues that he should be moved from
the county while the lawsuit is pending. See id.

3

Plaintiff, therefore, agrees that his conditions of confinement claim should be dismissed as
to Defendant Watts. Moreover, Plaintiff does not address the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding
slander, aside from noting that the News Channel referenced in his allegations is News Channel 15.
Accordingly, finding no clear error on either of those points, the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis as its own.
Furthermore, Plaintiff does not really address the Magistrate Judge’s findings regarding the
Florence County Police Department and Florence County Sheriff Department either, aside from
noting that he named them as Defendants because one employs corrections officers and the other
employs Defendant Watts. Plaintiff does not contradict the Magistrate Judge’s finding, however,
that these entities are not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. See Kane v. Beaufort Cnty.
Sheriffs Dept., No. 9:14-508-RMG, 2015 WL 404570, at * (D.S.C. Jan. 29, 2015) (“[U]nder 42
U.S.C. § 1983, only a “person” may be sued. A department is not a person subject to suit under §
1983.”).

Accordingly, finding no clear error on this issue either, the Court also adopts this

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Therefore, the Court agrees that Defendants Florence County Police Department and
Florence County Sheriff Department are entitled to dismissal, and that all of Plaintiff’s claims
should be dismissed aside from the excessive force claim against Defendant Watts.
CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s Complaint, the R
& R, Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R, and applicable law. For the reasons stated above and by
the Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s R & R.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED, without
prejudice as to Defendants Florence County Police Department and Florence County Sheriffs
Department. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any other claims, aside from Plaintiff’s claim for
excessive force against Defendant Watts, are also dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 8, 2015

5