United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West Florence, United States Magistrate Judge.
a civil action filed pro se by a federal prison inmate.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized
to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and to
submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e); 1915A (as soon
as possible after docketing, district courts should review
prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to
Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner,
currently incarcerated at FCI-Estill in Estill, South
Carolina. In the Complaint now under review, Plaintiff sues
many officials and employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), alleging medical negligence and
indifference relative to vision problems that Plaintiff has
been experiencing during his incarceration in several BOP
prisons. Plaintiff has named the United States of America as
one of his Defendants. He has also named six Defendants who,
according to the information contained in his summons, reside
in South Carolina: Defendants Mrs. Cruz; Loranth; Massa;
Meeks; Lepaine, and Garcia. Additionally, Plaintiff names
four Defendants who reside in Kentucky: John Doe #2; Jude
Onucha; K. Bennett-Baker; and P. Robinson. Three Defendants
who reside in Oklahoma: John Does ##3, 4, and 5. Plaintiff
also names three Defendants who reside in Kansas: Paul Laird;
Paul Harvey; B. Auterson; and eleven Defendants who reside in
Illinois: James Cross; Mr. Baugh; Douglas Kruse; Harold
Gillian; Mrs. Robinson; Mrs. W. Lirios; Mrs. Lyons; David
Goldsborough; Steven Hoffimerr; Frank Fester; and Margaret
Hodges. Finally, Plaintiff names one Defendant who resides in
the District of Columbia: John Doe #1. He seeks damages and
injunctive relief and has requested a preliminary injunction
and a temporary restraining order seeking transfer from
regular BOP prisons to a Federal Medical Center. ECF Nos. 7,
19. Plaintiff paid the full filing fee in this case.
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of Plaintiff's pro se
Complaint filed in this case. This review has been conducted
pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915A,  and the Prison Litigation Reform Act of
1996, and in light of the following precedents: Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md.
House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v.
Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyce v.
Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979).
complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those
drafted by attorneys, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d
1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), and a federal district court is
charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro
se litigant to allow the development of a potentially
meritorious case. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10
(1980). When a federal court is evaluating a pro se
complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be
true. De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 630
n.1 (4th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal
construction does not mean that this court can ignore a clear
failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a
claim currently cognizable in a federal district court.
Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387
(4th Cir. 1990). Even under this less stringent standard,
however, the Complaint filed in this case is subject to
partial summary dismissal under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
Complaint in this case should be partially dismissed to the
extent that it contains claims against Defendants over whom
this court cannot obtain personal jurisdiction because those
Defendants reside outside the geographical boundaries of the
court. A bedrock requirement in any civil action is that the
district court in which a Complaint is brought shall have
personal jurisdiction over the persons of the defendants.
Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“Service Upon Individuals Within a Judicial District
of the United States”) by its own title suggests that
persons outside a given judicial district cannot be brought
into that district court. However, the Rule allows
application of so-called state “long arm”
Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual -- other
than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver
has been filed -- may be served in a judicial district of the
United States by:
(1) following state law for serving a summons in an action
brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where
the district court is located or where service is made; or
(2) doing any of the following:
(A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to
the individual personally;
(B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling
or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and