Opinion
C. A. 4:24-598-RBH-KDW
04-23-2024
Wondell Timmons, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Lt. Mike Hartson, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Wondell Timmons, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this Amended Complaint against Mullins Police Department Lieutenant Mike Hartson alleging a violation of his civil rights. 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 the district judge dismiss the Amended Complaint in this case.
I. Factual Background
On March 28, 2024, the court issued an order notifying Plaintiff his Complaint was subject to summary dismissal because he failed to allege sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. ECF No. 19. The order further advised Plaintiff he had until April 11, 2024, to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in his pleadings. Id. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 4, 2024. ECF No. 22.
Plaintiff's allegations are not clear, but he appears to allege Lieutenant Hartson filed a false incident report charging Plaintiff with disorderly conduct. ECF No. 22 at 1. Plaintiff claims Hartson has not shown proof or evidence that Plaintiff was guilty of disorderly conduct “with a appropriate federal court with a judge decision.” Id. In support of his claims, Plaintiff references Incident Report 20233217. Id. The Incident Report provides as follows:
Offenses
Disorderly Conduct
Lt Hartson responded to incident location in reference to dispute. Upon arrival officer met with employee/complainant - Lasheena Crawford who advised that suspect - Tank (Back Male, Camo Jacket, Riding Bicycle) entered the store and began to curse at her about an incident that occurred earlier that day. Lasheena Crawford further advised that “Tank” then walked outside for a moment. Lasheena Crawford stated “Tank” then returned and approached her in an aggressive manner while continuing to curse at her. Lasheena Crawford conveyed to Lt. Hartson that she felt threatened at which point she sprayed “Tank” with wasp spray. “Tank” fled the scene prior to officer arrival and did not report the incident to law enforcement.ECF No. 1-1.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed this 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
A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matters, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
Construing Plaintiff's allegations as being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the undersigned finds Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish constitutional wrongdoing or discriminatory actions attributable to Lieutenant Hartson. Although Plaintiff alleges Lieutenant Hartson filed a false incident report, Plaintiff has not explained why the incident report that was prepared by Lieutenant Hartson was false. Plaintiff has also not shown how he was allegedly injured by the filing of the false incident report. The undersigned recommends Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be summarily dismissed.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
By order issued on March 28, 2024, the undersigned provided Plaintiff an opportunity to correct the defects identified in his Complaint. The undersigned warned Plaintiff if he failed to timely file an amended complaint or failed to cure the identified deficiencies, the undersigned would recommend to the district court that the action be dismissed without leave for further amendment. As discussed herein, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies, and like the original Complaint, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The undersigned recommends the court dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
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).