Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hewitt v. Porter

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

March 30, 2018

Steven Hewitt, Plaintiff,
v.
Abbi Porter; Doctor Coy; John Doe; Jane Doe, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Paige J. Gossett UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The plaintiff, Steven Hewitt, a self-represented state pretrial detainee, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). By orders dated December 7, 2017 and February 22, 2018, the court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct deficiencies identified by the court that would warrant summary dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF Nos. 5 & 17.) Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint in this case, and in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes the Complaint should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and issuance of service of process.

         I.Factual and Procedural Background

         Plaintiff, formerly an inmate at the Georgetown County Detention Center, indicates that on October 5, 2017, his psychological medication was discontinued without warning. He claims he was told that he stopped receiving the medications as punishment “since they could never find any pills in my cell when they searched.” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 6.) He claims the side effects of not taking this mediation can be dangerous and cause harm. He seeks damages, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

         By orders issued December 7, 2017 and February 22, 2018, the court provided Plaintiff the opportunity to file the documents necessary for his case to proceed with initial review pursuant to § 1915A and for the possible issuance and service of process. (ECF Nos. 4 & 16.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to provide the necessary information within a specific time period would subject the case to dismissal. Plaintiff did not respond to those orders and the time for response has lapsed.[1]

         Also on December 7, 2017 and February 22, 2018, the court issued orders identifying deficiencies in the Complaint that justify summary dismissal of Plaintiff's action. (ECF Nos. 5 & 17.) The court explained that Plaintiff failed to provide facts that would show that the defendants violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights, or that he is entitled to relief against them. Plaintiff has not filed an Amended Complaint or otherwise objected to the court's order.

         II .Discussion

         A.Standard of Review

         Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), which requires the court to review a complaint filed by a prisoner that seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391 (4th Cir.

         2009). Section 1915A requires a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action is frivolous, 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. § 1915A(b).

         This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).

         B.Analysis

         1. Failure to State a Claim

          Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies identified in the court's December 7, 2017 and February 22, 2018 orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Complaint should ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.