Tiedemann v. Southern Health Partners Inc et al

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 13 ) as the Order of the Court. The Court DISMISSES the J. Reuben Long Detention Center from this action without prejudice and without service of process. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 03/30/2016. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Thomas Tiedemann, # 364050,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No: 4: 15-5075-RMG

ORDER

)

)
Southern Health Partners, Inc.; Mellissa Van Dusor,)
Medical Director, 1. Reuben Long; Thomas Fox,
)
)
Director ofDetention; Horry County; and
J. Reuben Long Detention Center,
)
)
Defendants.
)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court summarily dismiss the J. Reuben Long Detention
Center (the "Detention Center") from this action. (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff has filed no objections.
The Court adopts the R. & R. and dismisses the Detention Center from this action.
Legal Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which specific objection is made.
Where no objection has been made, this Court "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 &
Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee
note). Moreover, in the absence of objections to the R. &. R., the Court need not explain adopting
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,200 (4th Cir. 1983).

1

Discussion

Plaintiff Thomas Tiedemann filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
named the Detention Center, where he was once an inmate, as a Defendant. (Dkt. No.1.) The
Magistrate Judge authorized service of process on the other Defendants but recommends
summarily dismissing the Detention Center from this action. (Dkt. No. 11.)
The Court agrees that Plaintiff's claims against the Detention Center cannot proceed. To
state a § 1983 claim, an aggrieved party must allege that he was injured by "the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" by a "person" acting "under
the color of state law." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Detention Center is not a "person" subject to suit
under § 1983. See Pre val v. Reno, 57 F. Supp. 2d 307, 310 (E.D. Va. 1999) ("[T]he Piedmont
Regional Jail is a 'person,' and therefore not amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.") rev'd in

part on other grounds 203 F.3d 821, 2000 WL 20591, at *1 (4th Cir. 2000) (unpublished); Brooks
v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989) ("Claims under § 1983 are
directed at 'persons' and the jail is not a person amenable to suit.").
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 13) as the Order of
the Court. The Court DISMISSES the J. Reuben Long Detention Center from this action without
prejudice and without service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard M. Gergel
United States District Court Judge
March ~O, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

2