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.

Wilson v. Spartanburg County Regional Hospital

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

June 6, 2019

John Ryan Tate Wilson, Plaintiff,
v.
Spartanburg County Regional Hospital and Spartanburg County Jail, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MARY GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff John Wilson is a pretrial detainee representing himself. Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue arises, Wilson shall have the benefit of the prison-mailroom rule. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Generally, Wilson alleges claims arising from his assault of a security guard and resulting indictment and detention. Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the assigned United States Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the complaint and to submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed, without prejudice and without issuance or service of process.

         BACKGROUND

         Wilson alleges that on May 18, 2018, he was at the Spartanburg County Regional Hospital for an overdose. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) He alleges “a case of malpractice happened” when staff at the Spartanburg Regional Medical Center gave him an injection that caused him to black out. (Id.) Wilson asserts he was told that, while he was blacked out, he tackled a security guard. (Id.) For that, he was arrested and then charged with assault and battery and with threatening a public official. (Id.) He has since been at the Spartanburg County Jail, and he claims the police have been treating him cruelly there. (Id. at 4, 6.) Wilson contends this amounts to unlawful discrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, malpractice, defamation of character, and false imprisonment. (Id. at 4, 6.) He is suing the Hospital and the Jail. (Id. at 2, 3.)

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Wilson filed this action on April 14, 2019.[1] Because Wilson constitutes a prisoner under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and because he is proceeding in forma pauperis, the undersigned screened his complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(a). On May 2, the undersigned issued an order notifying Wilson that his complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim and that he had not provided documents required for the Court to order issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 6.) The undersigned gave Wilson an opportunity to file an amended complaint and to provide the missing service documents. (Id.) The Clerk of Court provided Wilson forms to complete those tasks. His deadline was May 27. (Id.)

         On May 11, Wilson sent the Court a letter saying that he was unable to complete the forms and therefore would be contacting a lawyer to assist him. (Dkt. No. 10.) Since then, the Court has not received anything else from Wilson, and no lawyer has appeared on his behalf.

         DISCUSSION

         As discussed below, this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Alternatively, the case should be dismissed because the complaint fails to state any facially plausible claims for relief.

         I. Failure to Prosecute and to Comply with Court Order

         In the May 2 order, the undersigned warned Wilson that, if he did not timely submit service documents, his case would be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order. (Dkt. No. 6 at 3.) Although Wilson indicated he would be obtaining a lawyer, he did so well in advance of his deadline. Moreover, he did not seek an extension of his deadline while he found an attorney who would take his case. The deadline expired more than a week ago, and nothing in the record suggests that Wilson will soon either try completing the forms again himself or have an attorney bring his case into compliance. Thus, it appears the case should be dismissed under Rule 41, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's order.

         II. Failure to State a Claim

         The Court is required to screen prisoner complaints seeking redress from governmental entities, officers, or employees. See § 1915A. The Court must dismiss any complaints, or portions of complaints, that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. § 1915A(b). Those same criteria are grounds for dismissing a case filed by someone proceeding in forma pauperis. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         As for failure to state a claim, a complaint filed in federal court “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When a court analyzes a complaint for facial plausibility, it must accept the factual allegations as true. Id. The court need not, however, accept as true the complaint's legal conclusions. Id. When “it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of ...


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.