1:13-cv-00211-JFA-SVH Date Filed 07/30/13 Entry Number 34 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jesse M. James,
C/A No.: 1:13-211-JFA-SVH
Lancaster County Detention Center,
Sheriff Barry Faile; and Mrs. Deborah Horne,
The pro se plaintiff, Jesse M. James, brings this civil action in forma pauperis and
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights with regard
to the conditions of his confinement while he was housed at the Lancaster County
Detention Center. As of the date of this order, the defendant is incarcerated at the
Kirkland Correctional Institution awaiting his transfer to a permanent facility within the
South Carolina Department of Corrections. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and
Recommendation and opines that defendant Lancaster County Detention Center should be
summarily dismissed because it is not a proper party defendant in this § 1983 action. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the
court incorporates such without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court
is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1:13-cv-00211-JFA-SVH Date Filed 07/30/13 Entry Number 34 Page 2 of 2
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation and he has timely done so.
The Magistrate Judge suggests, and this court agrees, that defendant Lancaster
County Detention Center should be dismissed because it is not a proper party defendant in
this § 1983 action. Specifically, the Lancaster Sheriff’s Department is not a “person”
amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff’s objections to the
Report. The plaintiff concedes that the Lancaster County Detention Center is a facility
and not a person and he asserts that his “objection is an objection and not an objection...”
and that he does not want the individual defendants, Sheriff Faile and Ms. Horne, to be
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report
and Recommendation, and the plaintiff’s objections thereto, this court finds the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and
applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, defendant Lancaster County Detention Center is dismissed from this
action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
The Clerk shall return this file to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 30, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge