Opinion
C. A. 5:24-46-RMG-KDW
04-24-2024
Jamal Hassan Doctor, Plaintiff, v. Michael Haven; Parag Dalsania; and Angela Rutledge, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge
Jamal Hassan Doctor (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, is an inmate incarcerated in Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center. He filed this Amended Complaint alleging Wellpath medical staff Michael Haven, Parag Dalsania, and Angela Rutledge committed medical malpractice. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (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 that the district judge dismiss the Amended Complaint.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff states he had a mild stroke in March 2021 while he was detained in Al Cannon Detention Center. ECF No. 18 at 5. Plaintiff claims he was poisoned by the two mental health medications he was taking. Id. Plaintiff says he still feels incapable and not 100% himself. Id. Plaintiff alleges he went to the hospital and was told the medications he was taking caused a chain reaction in his body until he was not able to talk or swallow. Id. Plaintiff claims he had to learn to walk again. Id. Plaintiff says he is requesting a follow-up on this issue of lack of medical care by Wellpath. Id.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed his Amended 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 that 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
Plaintiff seeks to pursue medical malpractice claims against Defendants. ECF No. 18 at 4. However, the law is well settled that negligence, in general, is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328-336 & n.3 (1986); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 345-348 (1986); Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73 (4th Cir.1995) (Daniels bars an action under § 1983 for negligent conduct). Similarly, medical malpractice, a state law tort, is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner”). As Plaintiff's allegations do not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and negligence/medical malpractice are not constitutional violations under § 1983, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific 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 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure 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. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).