Brown v. Dangerfield et al

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10 ); overrules Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 12 ); and dismisses this action without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/31/2016. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Barry Leonard Brown,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Scotty L. Dangerfield;
)
Florence County Sheriff’s Office;
)
Florence County Detention Center;
)
Wells Fargo Bank;
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:16-2556-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Barry Leonard Brown’s (“Plaintiff”) pro
se complaint, which was filed on July 13, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
currently is an inmate at Kirkland Correctional Institution, part of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, but in his complaint he alleges that Defendant Scotty L.
Dangerfield (“Dangerfield”) subjected him to harsh interrogations, tampered with his mail,
and was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee in the
Florence County Detention Center from November of 2009 through March of 2010.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d)
(D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary
determinations. On August 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a report
and recommendation (“Report”) outlining Plaintiff’s complaint and recommending that the
Court dismiss the action without prejudice. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined
that Defendant Florence County Sheriff’s Department is immune from suit pursuant to the
Eleventh Amendment; that Defendant Florence County Detention Center is not a “person”

amenable to suit under § 1983; and that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank is subject to
summary dismissal because the complaint contains no allegations of wrongdoing against
this Defendant. In addition, with respect to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Dangerfield,
the Magistrate Judge determined that the applicable statute of limitations for any § 1983
claims Plaintiff may have had as a result of his confinement at the Florence County
Detention Center expired in March of 2013, three years after Plaintiff was transferred from
the Florence County Detention Center in March of 2010. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge also
determined that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Dangerfield are subject to summary
dismissal to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold Dangerfield liable for Plaintiff’s alleged
improper conviction, as Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction or sentence has been
overturned on direct appeal or otherwise been declared invalid. See Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Plaintiff filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report on August 10, 2016.
Importantly, however, nowhere in his objections does Plaintiff respond to any of the
Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that he is
indigent and suicidal, and he claims to be innocent of the crime for which he is in custody.
Plaintiff also filed a number of letters following the issuance of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report; again, however, nowhere in his letters does Plaintiff object to the Magistrate
Judge’s findings and recommendations. Instead Plaintiff makes various threats of suicide
and threatens the life of Defendant Dangerfield.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
2

is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After review, and in the absence of specific objections, the Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge correctly summarized the facts and applied the appropriate legal
standards. First, as the Magistrate Judge determined, Defendant Florence County Sheriff’s
Department is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, as it is well-established in South
Carolina that a sheriff's office is an agency of the state, such that a suit against a sheriff’s
office is a suit against the State. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Next,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Defendant Florence County Detention
Center is not a “person” amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moreover, because
Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege any wrongdoing on the part of Defendant Wells Fargo
Bank, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this Defendant is entitled to
summary dismissal. In addition to the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s § 1983
claims arising from Plaintiff’s pretrial detainment at the Florence County Detention Center
are barred by the three-year statute of limitations, as Plaintiff was transferred from pretrial
3

detainment in March of 2010 but did not file this suit until July of 2016. Lastly, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that to the extent Plaintiff seeks damages for alleged
harm that would render his conviction or sentence invalid, his claims are barred because
Plaintiff has not shown that his conviction or sentence has been reverse on direct appeal
or otherwise declared invalid. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court adopts and incorporates the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 10); overrules Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 12); and
dismisses this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 31, 2016
Charleston, South Carolina

4