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.

Smith v. Southern Health Partners

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

September 12, 2019

Patrick LeVar Smith, Plaintiff,
v.
Southern Health Partners; Anderson Oconee Pickens Mental Health; Anderson County Detention Center; Katherine Morris; Amber B. Brown; Registered Nurse Kerri; and Registered Nurse Allison, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMENDATION

          Kaymani D. West, United States Magistrate Judge

         Patrick LeVar Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint alleging his civil rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Anderson County Detention Center (“ACDC”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the complaint.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff alleges he was arrested on June 18, 2018. ECF No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff states the
[n]ext day after I wrote by Kiosk request to see staff/medical for the urine burning feeling/open pink areas (sores) open flesh spots the size of (b-bs) or the open to eyes of RN. Amber B. Brown, R.N. Katherine Morris, R.N. Kerri, and officer Reed, a male officer in the nurse station on shift. To secure the female R.N. nurse team.
Something we do not treat, or want to be responsible for is an trip to DHEC Said, by Nurse Team. Southern Health Partners don't hold us responsible for whoever gave you a STD, and we are not able to track down who gave you a STD.

Id. (errors in original). Plaintiff claims he also requested to see mental health as he was “very sad, ” but he was denied treatment. Id. Plaintiff also claims he asked to be moved to a “population cell” so he could have access to the telephone. Id. Plaintiff alleges other inmates who asked to be moved were moved two days to a week later, but he sat in C Pod for 10 months. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 4.

         On August 23, 2019, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff that his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. ECF No. 9. The order further advised Plaintiff that he had 21 days to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff did not file a response.

         II. Discussion

         A. Standard of Review

         Plaintiff 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 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. 1990).

         B. Analysis

         1. ...


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.