IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

James Henry Thompson II, ) C/A No.: 1:23-735-TMC-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Sheriff Kevin Tolsonl Chief John ) Hicks; Count Officer Hughes; ) Count Officer Shula; Count Officer ) Radford; Count Officer Pugh; ) ORDER AND NOTICE Count Officer Carter; Count ) Officer Robinson; Count Officer ) Marshall; Count Officer Campbell; ) Count Officer Caulder; Count ) Officer Jemison; Count Officer ) Trabue; Count Officer Herring; ) Count Officer Stintson; Count ) Officer St. Lurent; Count Officer ) St. Just; Count Officer Wriston, ) ) Defendants. ) )

James Henry Thompson II (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint pursuant to

against various officers at York County Detention Center (“YCDC”), where Plaintiff was previously detained. Pursuant to

(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. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff alleges officers require all inmates to throw their dirty clothes

in baskets. [ECF No. 1 at 2]. He claims officers wear latex gloves to remove items such as dirty, used toilet paper rolls from the dirty laundry. He alleges the dirty laundry has feces and excrement in it. Plaintiff claims the officers then touch the clean laundry to distribute to inmates without changing

their gloves. Plaintiff alleges he “started to develop rashes on [his] body, [his] arms, [his] face and back.” . at 5. Plaintiff claims he has developed “specific” rashes on his genitals, which have turned into sores “that will not go away.” He requests injunctive and monetary relief.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to

, 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.

(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. ,

(1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under

(e)(2)(B). ,

(1989).

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). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. ,

(4th Cir. 1978). In evaluating

a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. .,

(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. 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. ,

(2007). 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. .,

, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it

clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. ,

, 677‒78 (2009); ,

(2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 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. , 556 U.S. at 678‒79. B. Analysis

In his complaint, Plaintiff fails to make any allegations specific to any defendant. The doctrine of supervisory liability is generally inapplicable to § 1983 and suits, such that an employer or supervisor is not liable for the acts of his employees, absent an official policy or custom that results in illegal action. ,

(1978); ,

, 1142–43

(4th Cir. 1982). The Supreme Court explains that “[b]ecause vicarious liability is inapplicable to and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” ,

; ,

, 372–74 (4th Cir. 1984) (finding officials may be held liable for the acts of their subordinates, if the official is aware of a pervasive, unreasonable risk of harm from a specified source and fails to take corrective action as a result of deliberate indifference or tacit authorization). Because Plaintiff fails

to allege any specific actions or inactions against any defendant, defendants are entitled to summary dismissal. NOTICE CONCERNING AMENDMENT Plaintiff may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing an amended complaint by April 7, 2023, along with any appropriate service documents. Plaintiff is reminded an amended complaint replaces the original complaint and should be complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount Ranier,

(4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the undersigned will conduct screening of the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to

cure the deficiencies identified above, the undersigned will recommend to the district court that the claims specified above be dismissed without leave for further amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED. pot March 17, 2023 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge