William Bradshaw v. Mr. Harden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00225-gec-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998472185] [10-7052]

William Bradshaw v. Mr. Harden

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7052 Document: 13

Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7052 WILLIAM LEE BRADSHAW, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. MR. HARDEN, Lt.; MR. BURKE, Sgt., Defendants ­ Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00225-gec-mfu) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Bradshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7052 Document: 13

Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: William Lee Bradshaw appeals the district court's

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006). The officials at complaint Augusta alleged that defendants, violated supervisory Bradshaw's See 28

Correctional

Center,

rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from assault by other inmates. According to the complaint, a prison

official issued Bradshaw cleaning supplies, including a longhandled mop and a long-handled broom, in violation of written prison policy authorizing only inmates designated as "housemen" to possess such supplies without supervision. Bradshaw alleged

that the cleaning supplies were subsequently used by two inmates to assault him. The individual officer alleged to have violated the cleaning-supplies policy was not named in Bradshaw's complaint. Instead, those named as defendants have supervisory roles at the prison and Bradshaw alleges that they violated his rights by failing to enforce the cleaning-supplies policy. However, as

noted by the district court, Bradshaw does not allege any facts that would have put defendants on notice that the policy was being violated. As such, Bradshaw cannot show to, that or the tacit

supervisors

demonstrated deliberate 2

indifference

Case: 10-7052 Document: 13

Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Page: 3

authorization Accordingly, Bradshaw's

of, the

the

conduct court as

of did it

their not err on

subordinates. in a dismissing theory of

district

complaint

insofar

relied

supervisory liability. 73 (4th Cir. 1984). Bradshaw rights by failing back there into was also to

See Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372-

alleged protect

that him

defendants his

violated

his were

when

assailants

released however,

the no

general

prison

population. defendants risk of

Again, were to

indication to a

that

deliberately Bradshaw.

indifferent

potential

harm

See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-37 (1994).

Indeed, Bradshaw failed to indicate that such a risk existed. Notably, after Bradshaw was treated for the injuries resulting from the assault, but before he was released to the general population, he signed a form indicating that he did not fear for his safety in the general population. Also, there was no

evidence indicating that the two inmates who assaulted Bradshaw threatened or harmed him in any way after their return to the general prison population. We are disinclined to hold that

defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk of which they were unaware. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court to dismiss Bradshaw's complaint. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3

Case: 10-7052 Document: 13

Date Filed: 11/24/2010

Page: 4

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

4