United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a pretrial detainee, brought this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983, alleging denial of medical care and
retaliation. This matter is before the Court on
Plaintiff's motions for permanent injunction [Doc. 52]
and for a protective order [Doc. 53]. Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is
authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and to submit findings and
recommendations to the District Court.
filed a “motion for inju[n]ctive relief” on
September 14, 2018, requesting that Defendants be ordered to
“stop the cruel & unusual punishment, retaliatory
harassment/punishment and degrading/dehumanizing
treatment” that he had alleged. [Doc. 52.]
Alternatively, he requests that the Court “place [him]
in another Detention Center.” [Id.] On the
same day, he filed a “motion for protective order,
” requesting that the Court protect him “from
further Retaliatory harassment/punishment from the
Defendants.” [Doc. 53.]
filed their response to the motions on September 28, 2018.
[Doc. 59.] Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions are ripe for
alleges he has been at the Aiken County Detention Center
since April 3, 2017. [Doc. 34 at 1.] He alleges that he has
been denied medical treatment, punished for his condition,
and harassed, resulting in deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. [Doc. 34.] According to Plaintiff, he has been
“locked out, ” he cannot place sick calls, and he
will not be seen by medical staff. [Id. at 2.] He
has a bullet stuck in his head, his left knee has a meniscus
tear that is causing him significant pain, and he has medical
conditions that are not being treated. [Id. at 2-3.]
For his injuries, Plaintiff alleges that he is getting
constant damage to his knee every day and he needs surgery,
he has constant headaches, dizziness, nosebleeds, nausea,
chest pain, mental stress, and panic attacks. [Id.
at 3.] He is receiving only mild medications that are barely
helping. [Id. at 3-4.] He has not received a CAT
scan or MRI. [Id. at 3.]. For his relief, Plaintiff
requests “injunctive relief in the form of medical care
for all inmates of the Aiken County Detention Center”
and $1, 000 for each day he has to suffer from this pain.
[Id. at 4, 9-10.] Plaintiff alleges he has attempted
to exhaust his administrative remedies by filing grievances
through the kiosk at the prison, but that the grievances have
not met with any results, and he has instead been punished
and “locked out” of the ability “to place
sick calls, medical grievances, facility requests, or
facility grievances.” [Id. at 6-8.]
Construction of Pro Se Complaint
brought this action pro se, which requires the Court to
liberally construe his pleadings. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Pro se pleadings are held to a less
stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978). Even under this less stringent standard, however, the
pro se complaint is still subject to summary dismissal. The
mandated liberal construction means only that if the court
can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on
which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so.
Barnett v. Hargett, 174 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir.
1999). A court may not construct the plaintiff's legal
arguments for him. See Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d
411, 417-18 (7th Cir. 1993). Nor should a court
“conjure up questions never squarely presented.”
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985).
for a Cause of Action Under § 1983
1983 provides a private cause of action for plaintiffs
alleging constitutional violations by persons acting under
color of state law. Section 1983 provides, in relevant part,
[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or
causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured
in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983. To establish a claim under §
1983, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) that the
defendant “deprived [him] of a right secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States” and (2)
that the defendant “deprived [him] of this
constitutional right under color of [State] statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage.” Mentavlos
v. Anderson, 249 F.3d 301, 310 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
under-color-of-state-law element, which is equivalent to the
“state action” ...