United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenville Division
Micahel L. Seabrooke, Plaintiff,
Jennifer Hairsine, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge
plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights
(doc.1 at 4). Pursuant to the provisions of Section
636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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 submit
findings and recommendations to the district court.
plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute
authorizes the district court to dismiss a case if it is
satisfied that the action “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” is “frivolous or
malicious, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
pro se litigant, the plaintiff's pleadings are
accorded liberal construction and held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). 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, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
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.
plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Pickens County
Detention Center (“PCDC”) in Pickens, South
Carolina. He filed this civil rights action on September 13,
2018 against Jennifer Hairsine, the C.E.O. of Southern Health
Partners (“the defendant”) asserting claims for
medical neglect and denial of medical treatment (doc. 1 at 2
and 4). He states that he is suing the defendant in her
individual capacity (Id. at 2). The plaintiff
asserts that he broke a tooth, that it became infected, and
it later required surgery (Id. at 5-6). He alleges
that the surgery was necessary because he was denied medical
treatment by Southern Health Partners (Id. at 6).
Notably, the plaintiff does not claim that the plaintiff
denied him medical care. Instead, he alleges that Dr. Way and
the Nursing Staff denied him “proper medical
care” while working under the authority of the
defendant (Id. at 4-5). As relief, he seeks monetary
damages (Id. at 6).
September 18, 2018, the undersigned issued an order advising
the plaintiff that his complaint was subject to dismissal as
it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
(doc. 7). The plaintiff was given 14 days to correct the
defects identified in the court's order by filing an
amended complaint. The time provided in the court's order
to file an amended complaint has passed, and the plaintiff
failed to do so. As such for the reasons set forth herein,
the undersigned recommends that the case be dismissed.
complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which
“‘is not itself a source of substantive
rights,' but merely provides ‘a method for
vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.'”
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994)
(quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3
(1979)). A civil action under § 1983 “creates a
private right of action to vindicate violations of
‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws' of the United States.”
Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 1501 (2012). To
state a claim under § 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).
the Court must liberally construe the pro se
complaint and the plaintiff is not required to plead facts
sufficient to prove his case as an evidentiary matter in the
complaint, the complaint “must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570)); see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588
F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (explaining that a plaintiff
may proceed into the litigation process only when his
complaint is justified by both law and fact); cf.
Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S.Ct. 1289 (2011) (holding
that plaintiff need not pin his claim for relief to precise
to State a Claim
standard for reviewing medical claims of pretrial detainees
under the Fourteenth Amendment is essentially the same as
that for a convicted prisoner under the Eighth
Amendment-deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir.
1992). The government is required to provide medical care for
incarcerated individuals. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 102 (1976). However, not “every claim
by a prisoner [alleging] that he has not received adequate
medical treatment states a violation of the
[Constitution].” Id. at 105. However, to
establish deliberate indifference, the treatment “must
be so grossly incompetent, inadequate or excessive as to
shock the ...