United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
ORDER AND OPINION
RICHARD MARK GERGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that claims against
Defendants Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely be
summarily dismissed without prejudice. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.
alleges Defendant Dalton, an officer at the Alvin S. Glenn
Detention Center in Richland County, South Carolina, hit him
in the face and injured his left arm on August 11, 2015.
Plaintiff alleges Officer Dalton was fired after Plaintiff
filed an administrative grievance regarding the incident.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 9.) Plaintiff also names several supervisory
officials as Defendants (Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and
Friely), but he does not make any allegations against them.
filed the present action on May 18, 2017. On July 28, 2017,
the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice
of Defendants Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff filed no
objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews 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 and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This
Court may also "receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."
Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific
objections, "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, " see Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation omitted), and this Court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge, Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198
(4th Cir. 1983).
Magistrate Judge recommends summary dismissal of Defendants
Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely because the
complaint contains no allegations of wrongdoing by these
Defendants. The Court agrees. To assert a plausible §
1983 claim against a public official, a plaintiffs
allegations must show a causal connection or affirmative link
between the conduct of which the plaintiff complains and the
official sued. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,
371-72 (1976). Supervisory officials like Defendants Myers,
Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely may be liable for the
constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates if
the facts alleged satisfy the three-part test for supervisory
liability under § 1983 set forth in Shaw v.
Stroud: "(1) that the supervisor had actual or
constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in
conduct that posed 'a pervasive and unreasonable
risk' of constitutional injury to citizens like the
plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor's response to that
knowledge was so inadequate as to show 'deliberate
indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged
offensive practices, '; and (3) that there was an
'affirmative causal link' between the
supervisor's inaction and the particular constitutional
injury suffered by the plaintiff." 13 F.3d 791, 799 (4th
Cir. 1994). Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts about
any supervisory official's knowledge of or response to
any constitutional violation. To the contrary, his allegation
that Officer Dalton was fired in response to the incident in
which Plaintiff was injured undercuts any claim that the
supervisory response to the incident "was so inadequate
as to show 'deliberate indifference to or tacit
authorization of the alleged offensive practices.'"
Plaintiff therefore fails to state a plausible claim for
relief against Defendants Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, or
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No.
17) as the Order of the Court. All claims against Defendants
Myers, Kitchens, Sligh, Seaward, and Friely and
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.