Arnold v. Smith et al

Filing 26

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. Defendant Perry Correctional Institution and defendant MedicalMental are dismissed from this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 8/20/2013.(cwhi, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jonathan M. Arnold,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sgt. Smith; Ltd. Cashwell; Perry Correctional
Institution; SCDC; and Medical Mental,
Defendants.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 9:13-1273-JFA-BM

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Jonathan Arnold, brings this pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising
various claims pertaining to his conditions of confinement.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that defendants Perry Correctional Institution and “Medical
Mental” should be dismissed as defendants in this action. The Report sets forth in detail the
relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without
a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on June 28, 2013. However, the
plaintiff did not file objections and the time within which to do so has now expired. In the
absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required
1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. 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 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
As the Magistrate Judge correctly suggests, only “persons” may act under color of
state and therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a person. The defendant
Perry Correctional Institution is not a person who acts under color of state law. The
defendant named “Medical Mental” is not a specific individual so as to adequately state a
claim against a “person” under § 1983.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation proper and
incorporates it herein by reference.
Accordingly, defendant Perry Correctional Institution and defendant “Medical
Mental” are dismissed from this action without prejudice. As the Magistrate Judge has
authorized service of process on the remaining defendants, this matter shall be returned to
the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

August 20, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2