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

Kevin Shane Owens, ) C/A No.: 1:25-6446-CMC-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) REPORT AND Greenville County Detention ) RECOMMENDATION Center, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Kevin Shane Owens (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint pursuant to

against Greenville County Detention Center (“GCDC” or “Defendant”). 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. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff alleges he did not receive any of his prescription medications from June 11, 2024 to May 5, 2025. [ECF No. 1 at 4–5]. He claims injuries including emotional distress, insanity, mental suffering, panic, and an inability to complete sentences. . at 6. He seeks a mental evaluation, the return of his medications, and monetary damages. . On July 2, 2025, the undersigned issued orders (1) directing Plaintiff to submit documents necessary to bring this case into proper form and (2)

advising Plaintiff of the deficiencies of his complaint and permitting him until July 23, 2025, to file an amended complaint. [ECF Nos. 4, 5]. Plaintiff filed no responses. On July 15, 2025, the court’s orders were returned to the court as undeliverable with the envelope indicating Plaintiff was released from custody.

[ECF No. 7-1].1 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

1 The envelope appears to indicate Plaintiff was released from custody on May 14, 2025. [ECF No. 7-1]. Plaintiff’s complaint is dated May 6, 2025, but was received by this court on June 30, 2025. It was sent to this court by the Greenville County Clerk of Court. 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 It is well-settled that only persons may act under color of law; therefore, a defendant in a § 1983 action must qualify as a person.

;

.,

, 690 n.55 (1978) (noting that for purposes of § 1983, a person includes individuals and bodies politic and corporate). Courts have held that inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds are not considered a person and do not act under color

of state law. , No. 8:10-2988-JMC,

, at *1 (D.S.C. May 26, 2011) (finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Lexington County Detention Center, “as a building and not a person, is amenable to suit under § 1983”). In this case, Plaintiff names

GCDC as the sole defendant. Because a detention center is not a person, GCDC is subject to summary dismissal. III. Conclusion and Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this case be

summarily dismissed. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. Po feadger” July 30, 2025 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge 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.’” ,

(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.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 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 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

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.

(b)(1); ,

(1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1984).