Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. Northern Regional Jail

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

May 25, 2017

MARQUEL ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
NORTHERN REGIONAL JAIL and WEXFORD MEDICAL, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING § 1983 PETITION AND SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AS TO EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

          FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Background

         The pro se[1] plaintiff, Marquel Anderson (“Anderson”), filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he was denied seizure medication at the Northern Regional Jail. Anderson further alleges that after being without his medication an entire month, he suffered a seizure. Anderson maintains that during the seizure, he hit his head and bit his tongue. Anderson claims that the Northern Regional Jail and Wexford Medical Services (“Wexford”) violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to administer his medication. Anderson seeks $500, 000.00 due to pain and suffering, neglect, and failure to provide him with treatment in a timely manner.

         The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi for initial review and recommendation under Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation Procedure 83.01 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. After conducting a preliminary review of the complaint, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended that Anderson's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for a failure to name proper defendants and a failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. Anderson then filed an objection to the portion of Magistrate Judge Aloi's recommendation regarding his failure to exhaust. For the following reasons, the report and recommendation is adopted and affirmed in part, Anderson's petition is denied, and his objections are sustained.

         II. Applicable Law

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), any portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation to which objection is timely made will be reviewed de novo by this Court. Any portions of a recommendation to which no objection is made, will be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Because the plaintiff has filed timely objections, this Court will undertake a de novo review as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections were made.

         III. Discussion

         Magistrate Judge Aloi first concluded that Anderson failed to name proper defendants because neither is a “person” under § 1983. To this conclusion, Anderson offered no objection. The magistrate judge next concluded that Anderson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Specifically, he concluded that Anderson failed to follow the proper grievance procedure because he filed a grievance with the medical unit but did not file a grievance with the Northern Regional Jail Administrator. Anderson objects to this part of the recommendation and it will be reviewed de novo.

         A. Improper Defendants

         The magistrate judge first concluded that Anderson failed to name a proper “person” as a defendant because he instead names only the Northern Regional Jail and Wexford Medical Services. Anderson does not object to this portion of the magistrate judge's review and it will be reviewed under a clear error standard. This Court finds no clear error with regard to this issue.

         Section 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Generally, the language of § 1983 provides that natural “persons” are appropriate defendants, and does not expressly state that municipal corporations fall under the statute. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 660 (1978). For a municipal entity or a private corporation that is a state actor to be held liable under § 1983, there must be an official policy adopted that is responsible for the deprivation of rights. Id. at 690 (U.S. June 6, 1978); see also Paige v. Kirby, 314 F.Supp.2d 619, 622 (N.D. W.Va. 2004).

         Anderson does not name a natural person as a defendant. Further, Anderson's complaint fails to allege that Wexford or the Northern Regional Jail have official policies or customs that prevent the surgery and or treatment the plaintiff believes is required to alleviate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.