United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Wilton Q. Greene, III, #351286, Plaintiff,
Perry Correctional Institution, Defendant.
ORDER AND NOTICE
V. HODGES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Q. Greene, III, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint against Perry
Correctional Institution (“PCI”) alleging a
violation of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ.
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized
to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and
recommendations to the district judge.
filed his complaint 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. To protect against possible
abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court
to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous
or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A
finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a
meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). Pro se complaints
are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th
Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally
construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow
the development of a potentially meritorious case.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In
evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's
allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of
N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated
liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that
if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a
valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should
do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction
does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in
the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently
cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir.
and Procedural Background
an inmate incarcerated at PCI, filed this complaint alleging
he was denied outside recreation for ten months beginning
August 14, 2017. [ECF No. 1 at 5]. Plaintiff also states he
requested dental care in January 2018, but did not receive
treatment until May 2018. Id. Plaintiff also states
he experienced sharp pain, was spitting blood, and could only
eat with the right side of his mouth. Id. Plaintiff
also claims he suffers from back pain. Id. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages. Id. at 6.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (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). In this case, Plaintiff names PCI as
the sole defendant. However, PCI is not a person amenable to
suit under § 1983, but a collection of buildings,
facilities, and grounds that do not act under color of state
law. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S.
658, 690 (1978); Nelson v. Lexington Cnty. Det.
Ctr., No. 8:10-2988-JMC, 2011 WL 2066551, at *1 (D.S.C.
May 26, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff failed to establish
that the Lexington County Detention Center, “as a
building and not a person, is amenable to suit under §
1983”). Accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint is
subject to summary dismissal.
may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing
an amended complaint by July 17, 2018, along with any
appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded that an
amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should
be complete in itself. See Young v. City of
Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001)
(“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily
supersedes the original and renders it of no legal
effect.”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the
undersigned will conduct screening of the amended complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff fails to
file an amended complaint or fails to cure the deficiencies
identified above, the court will recommend to the district
court that the claims be dismissed.
of Right to File Objections to Report and
parties are advised that they may file specific written
objections to this Report and Recommendation with the
District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections
are made and the basis for such objections. “[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 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal