Brantley v. Aiken County Detention Center et al
ORDER RULING ON 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court concurs in the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff's complaint is summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants ACDC and Southern Health Partners only. The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling. Signed by the Honorable Margaret B. Seymour on 6/13/2017. (hcic, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Russell A. Brantley,
) C/A No. 4:17-0814-MBS-TER
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken County Detention Center,
Southern Health Partners, James Staten,
Lt. Hettich, Captain Gallum,
Plaintiff Russell A. Brantley is an inmate housed at the Aiken County Detention Center
(ACDC) in Aiken, South Carolina. Plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
complaint on March 27, 2017, alleging that he fell out of a top bunk, injured his collarbone, and
requires surgery. Plaintiff asserts that he was denied medical care in violation of his rights under the
Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking surgery,
physical therapy, and monetary damages.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge
reviewed the complaint pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1996, and relevant precedents. On May 8, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation in which he determined that Defendants ACDC and Southern
Health Partners are not “persons” acting under color of state law subject to suit under § 1983.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that these Defendants be summarily dismissed
without issuance and service of process.
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and
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.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has thoroughly reviewed the record. The court concurs in the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. Plaintiff’s complaint is summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process as to Defendants ACDC
and Southern Health Partners only. The case is recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
June 13, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?