United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
plaintiff, Frank Stephon Johnson, a self-represented state
pretrial detainee, brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff files this action in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and §
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.).
Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable
law, the court concludes that it should be summarily
dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service
an inmate at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center, indicates
that on January 12, 2018, he slipped and fell walking out of
the shower on a spot that chronically leaks sewage because of
faulty plumbing. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 7-8.) Plaintiff
indicates he injured his head and right side in the fall.
(Id. at 7.) The officer on duty called for medical
staff to assist Plaintiff when he fell. (Id.) The
medical staff took Plaintiff to the medical unit in a
wheelchair, x-rayed his elbow, and gave him pain medication.
(Id.) The medical staff told Plaintiff that nothing
was wrong with him “yet, ” and forced him to walk
back to his cell. (Id.) While walking back to his
cell, detention center officers Shapard and Roach made light
of his injury, indicating that they thought Plaintiff was
next day, Plaintiff told the commanding officer that he was
still in pain. (Id. at 8.) Medical staff brought
pain medication to Plaintiff's cell, and there, Plaintiff
showed a medical staff member the severe swelling on his
right side. (Id.) That night, Plaintiff was taken by
wheelchair to see a nurse, who indicated that “there is
something wrong” with Plaintiff, and sent him back to
his cell with a hot pad. (Id.) On January 15,
Plaintiff had an appointment to see Dr. Randolph, but
Plaintiff could not get out of bed due to the severe pain and
swelling, and he had involuntarily urinated on himself the
night before. (Id. at 9.) Dr. Randolph prescribed
pain medication to Plaintiff, ordered x-rays, and sent him to
the detention center's medical unit. (Id.) The
next day, the nurse failed to bring Plaintiff a heating pad.
alleges he has received poor medical attention, including the
defendants' failure to send him to a hospital to treat
his injuries. Plaintiff indicates he performs therapy on
himself to try and rebuild his strength on his right side.
(Id. at 10.) Plaintiff indicates he still has
problems with his back and right hip, and he continues to
have headaches on the right side of his forehead.
(Id.) He seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for “cruel and unusual punishment” and
“deprivation, ” and he alleges the defendants
have been negligent. (Id. at 6, 15.)
Standard of Review
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint
pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No.
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), including 28 U.S.C. §
1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Complaint has been filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent
litigant to commence an action in federal court without
prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the
lawsuit, and is also governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
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, and § 1915 allows, 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
plaintiff must do more than make mere conclusory statements.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible
on its face. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The reviewing court need
only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations,
not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
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
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 allows “a party who
has been deprived of a federal right under the color of state
law to seek relief.” City of Monterey v. Del Monte
Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 707 (1999). To
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1)
that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of
state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Plaintiff claims the defendants violated the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,
and he raises a state tort law claim of negligence.
none of the individuals named as defendants in the caption of
Plaintiff's complaint appear in the substantive
allegations raised by him. That is, Plaintiff fails to
provide any substantive allegations against the named
defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts
that would plausibly show that the named defendants were
personally involved in creating the conditions that led to
his injuries, or that they were responsible for failing to
provide Plaintiff with the medical treatment he claims he
should have received. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676
(providing that a plaintiff in a § 1983 action must
plead that the defendant, through his own individual actions,
violated the Constitution); Wright v. Collins, 766
F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In order for an
individual to be liable under § 1983, it must be
‘affirmatively shown that the official charged acted
personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff's rights.
The doctrine of respondeat superior has no
application under this section.' ”) (quoting
Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d, 928 (4th Cir. 1977)).
Similarly, Plaintiff fails provide any allegations that ...