United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
DALE P. FIELD, JR., Plaintiff,
DAVID A. FARMER, in his official capacity as Director of West Virginia Regional Jail Authority; PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC.; SCOTT VILLERS, in his official capacity Acting Administrator Tygart Valley Regional Jail; GARY MOHR, in his official capacity as Director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections; TIM BUCHANAN, in his official capacity as Warden, Noble Correctional Institution; JOHN DOE 1, Transportation Sergeant; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JANE DOE 1; and JANE DOE 2, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 34], GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DKT. NOS. 10, 12, 14, 16], AND DISMISSING
THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE
M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5, 2016, the pro se plaintiff, Dale P. Field, Jr.
(“Field”), filed this action against the
defendants (Dkt. No. 1), alleging that, while incarcerated in
Tygart Valley Regional Jail and several Ohio correctional
facilities, he received medical treatment that was negligent
and fell below the applicable standard of care. As a
consequence, Field claims that his constitutional rights were
violated, and he seeks damages in the amount of $175, 000.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the local rules,
the Court referred the action to the Honorable Michael J.
Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge, for review and Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 4).
7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aloi granted Field's
application to proceed as a pauper, and summonses were sent
to the United States Marshals Service for delivery to the
defendants (Dkt. Nos. 5; 6). The summonses to the defendants,
PrimeCare Medical, Inc. (“PrimeCare”), Scott
Villers (“Villers”), David A. Farmer
(“Farmer”), Gary Mohr (“Mohr”), and
Tim Buchanan (“Buchanan”), were returned executed
on August 9, 2016 (Dkt. Nos. 18; 19; 20; 21; 22). The summons
to John Doe (1), however, was returned unexecuted (Dkt. No.
August 5, 2016, Farmer and Villers each moved to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim (Dkt. Nos. 10; 12). On
August 8, 2016, PrimeCare filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. No.
14), and Mohr and Buchanan also jointly moved to dismiss
(Dkt. No. 14). Field responded to each of these motions in
turn (Dkt. Nos. 31; 32; 33), and Farmer and Villers filed a
joint reply (Dkt. No. 28).
R&R dated December 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aloi
recommended that the defendants' motions to dismiss be
granted (Dkt. No. 34). First, he reasoned that PrimeCare is
not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Id. at 9. Next, he concluded that the
complaint failed to state a claim against both Farmer and
Vickers because they are named only in their official
capacity. Field, however, made no specific allegations
against them nor pleaded the necessary elements to establish
supervisory liability. Id. at 12. Moreover, Field
failed to establish the minimum contacts necessary for the
Court to exercise jurisdiction over Mohr and Buchanan, both
Ohio prison officials. Id. at 12-14. Finally, the
R&R recommended that the unnamed defendants be dismissed
because Field failed to make any specific allegations or
claims against any of them. Id. at 14.
R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi notified Field of his right to
file any objections to the recommendations within fourteen
days following his receipt of the R&R. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “The Court will review de
novo any portions of the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation to which a specific objection is made . . .
and the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the
magistrate judge's recommendations to which the prisoner
does not object.” Dellacirprete v. Gutierrez,
479 F.Supp.2d 600, 603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Failure to
file specific objections waives appellate review of both
factual and legal questions. See United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984);
see also Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659
(10th Cir. 1991).
Field received the R&R on December 19, 2016, he has not
filed any objections (Dkt. No. 35). Therefore, the Court is
under no duty to conduct a de novo review of
Magistrate Judge Aloi's findings. Furthermore, following
a review of the R&R and the record for clear error, the
Court adopts the opinion of the Magistrate Judge for the
reasons discussed in the R&R (Dkt. No. 34).
conclusion, the Court:
1. ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 34);
2. GRANTS the defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos.
10; 12; 14; 16); and
3. DISMISSES the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) WITH PREJUDICE and
ORDERS that this case be STRICKEN from the active docket of
Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record and the pro se plaintiff,
certified mail and return receipt ...