You're viewing Docket Item 34 from the case James v. Lancaster County Detention Center et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




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,

vs.

Plaintiff,

C/A No.: 1:13-211-JFA-SVH

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Lancaster County Detention Center,
Sheriff Barry Faile; and Mrs. Deborah Horne,

Defendants.

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

1

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
1
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

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

dismissed.

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

2