Smith v. Bailey et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation in full and DISMISSING this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/22/14. (kmca)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA U.~.:

•
'.

~

1

:j,

20lq MAY 22 A q: 58

Stanscel Smith, III,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Sgt. J. Bailey, Corp. L. Goodine, Greenville)
County Detention Center,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 8: 14-cv-1229-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 11), recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without
prejudice and without issuance of service. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the R & R. For
the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the R & R and dismisses this action without prejudice.
I. Le&:al Standard
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The 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)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions ofthe R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P.

neb).

Here, however, because no objection has been

made, this Court "must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in

1

order to accept the recommendation.'" [d. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note).
Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any
explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v.

Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
Pro se complaints are construed liberally to allow the development of meritorious claims.
However, the requirement of a liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a
plaintiff's clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. See Well v. Dep't ofSoc.

Servs. for City ofBaltimore, 901 F.2d 387,391 (4th Cir. 1990) ("The special judicial solicitude
with which a district court should view pro se complaints does not transform the court into an
advocate."). Furthermore, the Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action sua sponte if the
claim is "frivolous or malicious," "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," or
"seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989).
II. Discussion
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, at best, Plaintiff has alleged that
Defendants Bailey and Goodine were negligent. However, negligence is not actionable under §

1983. Pinkv. Lester, 52 F.3d 73,74-75 (4th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the Court also agrees that
the only plausible inference from Plaintiff's allegations is that from approximately December 23,
2013, until Plaintiff's release in April of2014, he was serving his sentence that he would have
served earlier had he not been mistakenly released. Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for false
imprisonment. Finally, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has not stated a claim against Greenville
County Detention Center for the reasons stated in the R & R. (See Dkt. No. 11 at 6).

2

Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R & R in full and DISMISSES this action without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark rgel
United States District Judge
May 't~2014
Charleston, South Carolina

3