Burns v. Dalton et al

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 17 ) as the Order of the Court. All claims against Defendants Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AND IT IS ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/14/2017. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Isiah Ha' Keem Burns,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:17-1295-RMG

)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER AND OPINION

Officer Dalton, Director Myers, Co-Director)
)
Kitchens, Lt. Sligh, Lt. Seaward, and Lt.
Friely,
)
)

Defendant.

)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, recommending that claims against Defendants Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely
be summarily dismissed without prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation.
I.

Background

Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dalton, an officer at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center in
Richland County, South Carolina, hit him in the face and injured his left arm on August 11 , 2015.
Plaintiff alleges Officer Dalton was fired after Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance regarding
the incident. (Dkt. No. 1 at 9.) Plaintiff also names several supervisory officials as Defendants
(Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely), but he does not make any allegations against them.
Plaintiff filed the present action on May l 8, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissal without prejudice of Defendants Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and
Friely under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

-1-

II.

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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made. Additionally, the 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)(l). This Court
may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions." Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, "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," see Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983).

III.

Discussion

The Magistrate Judge recommends summary dismissal of Defendants Myers, Kitchens,
Sligh, Seaward, and Friely because the complaint contains no allegations of wrongdoing by these
Defendants. The Court agrees. To assert a plausible § 1983 claim against a public official, a
plaintiffs allegations must show a causal connection or affirmative link between the conduct of
which the plaintiff complains and the official sued. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72
(1976). Supervisory officials like Defendants Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely may
be liable for the constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates if the facts alleged satisfy the
three-part test for supervisory liability under § 1983 set forth in Shaw v. Stroud: "(l) that the
supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that
-2-

posed ' a pervasive and unreasonable risk' of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2)
that the supervisor' s response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show 'deliberate
indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices,' ; and (3) that there was an
' affirmative causal link' between the supervisor' s inaction and the particular constitutional injury
suffered by the plaintiff." 13 F .3d 791 , 799 (4th Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any
facts about any supervisory official ' s knowledge of or response to any constitutional violation. To
the contrary, his allegation that Officer Dalton was fired in response to the incident in which
Plaintiff was injured undercuts any claim that the supervisory response to the incident "was so
inadequate as to show ' deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive
practices."' Plaintiff therefore fails to state a plausible claim for relief against Defendants Myers,
Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, or Friely.
IV.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 17) as the Order of the Court. All claims against Defendants Myers,
Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
August / L(201 7
Charleston, South Carolina

-3-