Odom v. Trident Hospital Director et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 10 ) and dismisses this action without prejudice. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/1/2017. (prou, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Trident Hospital Director; SC
Taxpayers, State of; Charleston
County Courthouse Bailiff; S.C.
Budget and Control Board Director;
SC Negligence Injury Insurer;
Champus Insurer; Charleston County )
Taxpayers; Judge Nicholson, Jr.;
Christopher Burrow, Atty.; CARTA Bus )
Co. Atty.; Dr. Buncher Medical Facility; )
Alan Wilson; Courthouse Video;
Judge Kaymani West; Judge Richard
Gergel; MUSC; and EMS,
Civil Action No. 5:17-cv-2540-BHH
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Christopher Odom’s pro se complaint,
which he indicates is both a habeas corpus petition and a civil complaint. Odom is a
pretrial detainee at the Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center in Charleston County, South
Carolina, and his claims arise out of his involuntary commitment to Trident Hospital.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a),
D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On November 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
(“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. According to the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s habeas
corpus claims are subject to dismissal because Plaintiff does not request relief that would
shorten any period of incarceration. In addition, the Magistrate Judge determined that
Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable constitutional claim against Defendants SC Taxpayers,
Charleston County Taxpayers, State of; SC Budget and Control Director; MUSC; EMS; Dr.
Buncher Medical Facility; SC Negligence Injury Insurer; or Champus Insurer because the
complaint contains no allegations showing that any of these individuals or organizations
had any involvement with Plaintiff’s involuntary commitment. Also, the Magistrate Judge
determined that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state plausible §§ 1983 or 1985 claim against
Defendants Trident Hospital Director, Atty Burrow, or Atty CARTA Bus Co. because the
complaint contains no allegations of wrongdoing against them, and, even if it did, the
complaint contains no allegations from which it may be inferred that any of these
Defendants is a state actor or that any of them conspired with anyone else to violate
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The Magistrate Judge noted that Defendant Courthouse
Video is not a “person” amenable to suit under §§ 1983 or 1985, and that there are no
allegations of wrongdoing against Defendant Alan Wilson, the South Carolina Attorney
General. The Magistrate Judge determined that Judge Gergel, Magistrate Judge West,
and Judge Nicholson are entitled to dismissal because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
doctrine of judicial immunity. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff fails to
show any wrongdoing by Defendant Charleston County Courthouse Bailiff. In all, the
Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal
because it fails to state a plausible claim against any named Defendant.
Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right
to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of receiving a copy. To date,
no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
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
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).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 10) and
dismisses this action without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
December 1, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
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?