United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (PARTIAL SUMMARY
Bristow Marchant United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Shannon Maurice Smith, Jr., proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis. brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. He is currently a pretrial detainee at
the Hill-Finklea Detention Center. At the time of the alleged
incidents, he was a pretrial detainee at the Sheriff Al
Cannon Detention Center in Charleston, South Carolina.
Plaintiff asserts a First Amendment claim concerning his
religious rights. He also may be asserting a failure to
protect claim and claims concerning his legal mail.
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint pursuant
to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and
§ 1915A, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No.
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), and in light of the following
precedents: Denton v. Hernandez. 504 U.S. 25 (1992),
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), Nasim v. Warden.
Maryland House of Com, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995), and
Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983).
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), and a federal district court
is charged with liberally construing a pro se
complaint to allow for the development of a potentially
meritorious case. Hughes v. Rowe. 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56 (2007)). However, even when considered pursuant
to this liberal standard, Defendant Sheriff Al Cannon
Detention Center is subject to summary dismissal. 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 (2009) [outlining
pleading requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil
have routinely held that inanimate objects such as buildings,
facilities, and grounds, such as the Sheriff Al Cannon
Detention Center, do not act under color of state law, and
are not a "person" subject to suit under
§1983. See Allison v. California Adult Auth.,
419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. l969)[California Adult Authority
and San Quentin Prison not "person[s]" subject to
suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983]: Nelson v. Lexington
Cnty. Pet. Ctr., C/A No. 8:10-2988-JMC. 2011 WL 2066551,
at *l (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) [Finding that a detention center,
as a building and not a person, was not amenable to suit
under § 1983]; Preval v. Reno. 57 F.Supp.2d
307, 310 (E.D. Va. l999)["[T]he Piedmont Regional Jail
is not a 'person,' and therefore not amenable to suit
under 42 U.S.C. § !983."l: Brooks v. Pembroke
City Jail. 722 F.Supp. 1294, l3Ol(E.D. N.C.
l989)["Claims under § 1983 are directed at
'persons' and the jail is not a person amenable to
suit."]. Therefore, Defendant Sheriff Al Cannon
Detention Center entitled to dismissal as a party Defendant.
on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Court dismiss
Defendant Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The
Complaint should be served on the remaining Defendants.
attention is directed to the important notice on the next
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 & Ace. 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 Rule of Civil
Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post
Office Box 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402
to timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal
from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn,474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v.