United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Richard Walker, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff is currently detained in the Lexington County
Detention Center (“LCDC”). (ECF No. 11 at 1.)
matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the court to dismiss civil
actions filed in forma pauperis if they are
frivolous or malicious, if they fail to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or if they seek monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, the matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D.
Austin for pre-trial handling. On April 14, 2016 the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending that Plaintiff's
action be dismissed without prejudice, without issuance, and
without service of process. (ECF No. 11.) The Report sets
forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which the court
incorporates herein without a recitation. Plaintiff filed a
Motion for Extension of Time to file objections to the Report
(ECF No. 13), which was subsequently granted by the court.
(ECF No. 14.) Specifically, the court extended
Plaintiff's time to file objections until May 20, 2016.
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Matthews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270- 71 (1976). This court is
charged with making a de novo determination 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
Magistrate Judge's recommendation, or recommit the matter
with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1).
Objections to a Report and Recommendation must specifically
identify portions of the Report and the basis for those
objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). “[I]n 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.'” Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
the court will assume that Plaintiff's Objections to
Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 16), were timely
filed. In his Objections, Plaintiff claims that
the court erred in determining that he lacked standing based
on an assumption that he was bringing his claim on behalf of
all detainees. (See ECF No. 16 at 2.) In response,
Plaintiff clarifies that he is bringing his claim on behalf
of himself alone. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff
contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in dismissing his
claim for failure to assert a plausible claim. (Id.
at 3.) In his Objections, Plaintiff alleges multiple injuries
brought about by the alleged violation of his right to access
the courts, many of which were not mentioned in his
Complaint. (See id. at 8-16; ECF No.
the court sustains Plaintiff's objection to the
Magistrate Judge's finding that he lacked standing.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and because he
clarified in his objections that he only intended to bring
this action on behalf of himself, not other prisoners, the
court finds that Plaintiff has standing to bring this action.
(See ECF No. 16 at 2.)
the court liberally construes Plaintiff's new allegations
of injury in his Objections as a request to amend his
Complaint. Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allows the court to give a party leave to amend
their complaint “when justice so requires.” Here,
Plaintiff is incarcerated and is proceeding pro se.
Consideration of the alleged injuries in Plaintiff's
Objections, which he failed to allege in his Complaint, could
allow Plaintiff to establish a cognizable claim and survive
dismissal. Consequently, the court finds that justice
requires giving Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint.
foregoing reasons, the court SUSTAINS Plaintiff's
objection to the Magistrate Judge's finding that he
lacked standing. Regarding the rest of Plaintiff's
objections, the court gives Plaintiff leave to amend his
complaint by February 10, 2017. If Plaintiff fails to file an
amendment by this date, his claim will be subject to
dismissal. The court REMANDS this matter to the Magistrate
Judge for a proceeding consistent with this ruling.
 The envelope, containing
Plaintiff's Objections, was time-stamped when the clerk
received it, but it was not time-stamped when it was mailed
by the prison. (See ECF No. 16-2.) Because of this
issue, the court will assume that the date Plaintiff listed
on his letter and his envelope, May 5, 2016, was proper.
(See ECF Nos. 16-1, 16-2.)
 Specifically, Plaintiff generally
alleges that he suffered medical, mental, and physical
injuries that could have been rectified if he was given
adequate resources to litigate his legal claims.
(See ECF No. 16 at 8-10.) More notably, Plaintiff
also asserts that this lack of legal resources led him to