Jackson v. Hill-Finklea Berkley County Detention Center et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 15 Report and Recommendations; Dismissing Hill-Finklea Berkeley County Detention Center with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/1/2011. (mbro, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Benjamin Jesse Jackson, m, #10060206 Plaintiff,
~

Hill- Finklea Berkeley County Detention Center; SheriffH. Wayne Dewitt; Mr. McElvogue; Mrs. McElvogue; Sgt. Sheets; PFC. Menzie; PFC. Sports; Sgt. Jacumin. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
)

Civil Action No.6: 10-3 I 28-RMG-KFM

O~ffi

In this pro se action Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C § 1983 and alleges claims for neglect, emotional distress, racial profiling, over-crowdedness, unsanitary housing, and "uncruel punishment", As a result, this case was automatically referred to the

United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C. Plaintiff files this action informo

pouperis and thus the action is subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1915 (e)(2)(B). The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that Defendant Hill-Finklea Berkeley

County Detention Center should be dismissed, with prejudice and without issuance and service
of process. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences ifhe failed to do so. Plaintiff replied stating that he does not object to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 20). As explained herein, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and

dismisses Defendant Hili-Finklea Berkeley County Detention Center.

1

LAW/ANALYSIS The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Coun. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71,96 S.C!. 549, 46 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). This

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Repon and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this Court may "accept, reject. or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate," 28
U.S,C. § 636(b)(I). This Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the

magistrate with instructions." Id.

In the absence of specific objections to the Report and

Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983). This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for any clear errors of law and has found none. Plaintiff names Hill-Finklea Berkeley County Detention Center as a Defendant. It is well settled that only "persons" may act under color of state law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a "person." The Hill-Finklea Berkeley County Detention Center is

an inanimate object that cannot act under color of stale law and therefore is not a "person"
subject to suit under § 1983. See Allison v. California Adult Auth. , 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. I 969)(California Adult Authority and San Quentin Prison not "person[s]" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Preval v. Reno, 57 F.Supp.2d 307, 310 (E.D. Va. 1999)("[T]be Piedmont

Regional Jail is not a 'person,' and therefore not amenable to sui t under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.");
Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F. Supp. 1294,1301(E.D. N.C. 1989)("Claims under § 1983

are directed at 'persons' and the jail is not a person amenable to suit."); Cf. Roach v. West
Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility, 74 F.3d 46,48 (4th Cir. 1996).
2

Based on the above authority and the Record in this maner, the Court agrees with the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Thus, this Court dismisses HiII·Finklea Berkeley County Detention Center as a Defendant in this matter.

CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Record, Magistrate Judge 's Report and Recommendation, and the relevant case law, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and d ismisses Hill·Finklea Berkeley County Detention Center with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge March _(_ ,2011 Charleston, South Carolina

3