Frye v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, The
5:24-cv-01893
| D.S.C. | Mar 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Marion Wade Frye, an incarcerated individual in South Carolina, filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous state officials and entities, alleging violations of constitutional rights following a surgery.
- Frye claimed that following septoplasty surgery at Prisma Health Hospital in October 2022, a wireless medical device was implanted in him which allegedly allows others to access and transmit his thoughts and information using artificial intelligence technology.
- The plaintiff alleged continued torment, psychological and physical harm, and violations of privacy by public officials, and contended his requests for protective custody were ignored.
- The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for frivolousness and sufficiency of claims, eventually recommending dismissal for failing to state a cognizable legal claim.
- Plaintiff filed multiple motions (including appointment of counsel and protective order), all of which were recommended for denial as moot; he also objected to the Report and Recommendation.
- The District Court undertook de novo review of the objections but ultimately adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, dismissing the case without leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Complaint Under § 1983 | Frye alleged rights violations via monitoring device and AI-enabled mind-reading | Defendants argued complaint lacked plausible, non-frivolous allegations | Court found allegations “implausible” and “devoid of merit” |
| Appointment of Counsel for Indigent Litigant | Lacked education, needed lawyer | No “exceptional circumstances” requiring counsel | No appointment; claim not colorable |
| Motions for Protective Order and Venue Change | Safety concerns, potential bias | Unnecessary given implausible underlying claims | Motions denied as moot |
| Leave to Amend Complaint | Desired to submit more evidence | Previous amendment did not cure deficiencies | Denied leave for further amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings to be generously construed)
- Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) (pro se complaints afford certain lenity, but must state plausible claim)
- Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448 (4th Cir. 2012) (federal courts lack jurisdiction over wholly insubstantial/frivolous claims)
- United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984) (failure to file specific objections waives review)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (purpose of specificity in objections)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (no explanation required if objections are general)