Brantley v. Aiken County Detention Center
4:17-cv-00814
D.S.C.Aug 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Russell A. Brantley, an Aiken County Detention Center inmate, alleges he fell from a top bunk, injured his collarbone, and was denied necessary medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Plaintiff proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis; the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III for pretrial handling.
- Defendant James Staten moved to quash service/dismiss for insufficient service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), asserting he no longer worked at ACDC and that Lt. Shawn Carlen was not authorized to accept service for him.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the dismissal because proper service was the responsibility of the U.S. Marshal and failure to effect service was not Plaintiff’s fault; no objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation.
- The district court reviewed and agreed with the Magistrate Judge, denied Staten’s motion without prejudice, and directed the U.S. Marshal to contact Staten’s counsel to ascertain acceptance of service or obtain a proper address.
- The case was recommitted to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Staten was effective | Brantley relied on the U.S. Marshal to serve; improper service was not his fault | Staten argues service at ACDC to Lt. Carlen was ineffective because Staten no longer worked there and Carlen lacked authority | Denied dismissal; service improper so far but dismissal without prejudice; Marshal instructed to contact Staten's counsel |
| Whether dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(5) | Plaintiff implicitly opposes dismissal, asserting reliance on Marshal | Staten seeks dismissal for ineffective service of process | Court declined to dismiss without prejudice and ordered further service attempts via counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (Magistrate judge recommendations are advisory; district court makes final determination)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (in absence of timely objections, district court need only satisfy itself there is no clear error before adopting magistrate recommendation)