Gilbert v. Cpt. et al

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. (ECF No. 20 ). It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. [1 ]) is partially summarily dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants Laurens County Johnson Detention Center and Laurens County. It is also ORDERED that Defendant Cpt. Tucker be served with Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1 ). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/13/2017. (mcot, )

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

James Franklin Gilbert, III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Cpt. Tucker,
)
Lauren County Johnson Detention Center, )
and Laurens County,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Case No. 5:16-cv-03395-JMC

ORDER

Pro Se Plaintiff James Franklin Gilbert, III, formerly incarcerated at Laurens County
Johnson Detention Center (“LCJDC”), Laurens, South Carolina, filed this civil action against Cpt.
Tucker, Lauren County Johnson Detention Center, and Laurens County (“Defendants”) claiming
Defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him safe and humane conditions
of confinement. (ECF No. 1 at 4-9.) Plaintiff specifically alleges Defendants caused him pain and
suffering and failed to provide him adequate hygiene supplies, mail supplies, writing supplies, and
copies of his grievance forms during his incarceration at LCJDC. (ECF No. 1 at 4-5, 7 and 9.)
Furthermore, Plaintiff requests for damages in the amount of $10,000.00 and injunction relief.
(ECF No. 1 at 8.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, filed on February 28, 2017, partially
ruled that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) fails to state a plausible claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendant LCJDC because it is not a person subject to suit under § 1983. (ECF No.
20 at 3.) The Magistrate Judge further ruled that Plaintiff failed to assert claims to show that
Defendant Laurens County was responsible for alleged policy at issue or that it even had any

1

control or jurisdiction over LCJDC. Id. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 20 at 5.) However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In
the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results
in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

2

After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein.
(ECF No. 20.) It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 1) is partially
summarily dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants Laurens County Johnson Detention
Center and Laurens County. It is also ORDERED that Defendant Cpt. Tucker be served with
Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
April 13, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

3