BARNETT v. ALAMANCE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE DETENTION CENTER et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 04/07/2016; that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 48 ) be GRANTED. (Garland, Leah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES ANTHONY BARNET:I, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v
ALAMÂNCE COUNTY SHE,RIFF'
OFFICE DETENTION CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

1:1,4CY732

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants r{.lamance County Sheriff Terry

Johnson (incorrecdy refemed to in the Complaint as the "Alamance County Sheriff Office
Detention Cente/'), Nutse Jantce Tilley, Nurse Susan Fortner (incorrectly refened to in the
Complaint as "Nurse Fontiet"), Nurse C. I(ennedy (incorrectly referred to in the Complaint
as "Nurse Betty'), Nurse Eve Schon (referred to in the Complaint as "Nurse Eve"), Nurse

Jeff Schenk (refered to in the Complaint as "Nurse Jeff'), Nurse lSistin Whitlow (referred

to in the Complaint âs "Nurse Christie'), and Nurse Debbie Yates' (refered to as "Nurse
Debbie') Motion fot Summary Judgement. (Docket Entry 4S.) Plaintiff James Anthony
Barnett, Jt., filed a Response. @ocket F,ntry

Entry

65.)

62.)

Defendants filed a

Reply. pocket

F'ot the following reasons, the Court recommends that Defendants'Motion for

SummaryJudgement be granted.

1

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a prisonet of the State of
U.S.C. S 1983 on August

Noth

Carohna, fìled this action pursuant to 42

26,2014. Q)ocket Entty 2) Plaintiff

alleges that his Fourteenth

Amendment rþhts were violated because the Âlamance County Sheriff Office Detention
Center ("Detention Centet') and its medical staff were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs
ptiapism ("an erection that [will] not go away").r (Id. at

4-8.) Plaintiff

seeks over 2 million

dollats in damages. Qd. at9.) Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief ordering the Detention
Center and medical staff "to stop ignoring, denying and delaying inmates medical treatment,"

requiring "bettet decisions and judgements be made at the fDetention Center] by [the medical

staff], based on mere commonsense and knowledge and based on medical training and
expertise, regardless of what that petson(s) colleague(s) may say or think," ordedng each nurse

to be suspended while the suit is pending and suspended permanently if Defendants are found

liable, and an otdet fot Defendants to pay PlaintifPs court and attorney fees if they ate found

liable.

Qd.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is wattanted

if

there is no genuine issue âs to any material fact and

the movingpaitry is entided to judgment as a matter of

Int'l

Bus.

law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(z); Zahodnicþ, u.

Machl Corþ.,135 F.3d 91.1,91.3 (4th Cir. 1997). The party seeking summarT judgment

bears the burden of initially coming forwatd and demonstrating the absenc e

of material

fact.

1 Detailed facts

Celotex Corp. u. Catrett,477 U.S. 317,323

of agenuine issue

(1936). Once the moving pârry

has

with respect to the medical staffs treatment of Plaintiff are provided in the analysis.
2

met its burden, the non-moving party must then afftmatively demonsÚate the presence of
genuine issue

of

matenal fact which tequires

a

trial. Maßa¡hita Elec. Indus. Co. a. Zenith Rødio

Corþ.,475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). \)íhen making a summary judgment determination, the

court must view the evidence and justifiable inferences from the evidence in the light most
favotable

to the non-moving p^try.

Zahodnick, 135 F'.3d

^t

91,3. However, the party

opposing summalT judgment may not rest on mere allegations or denials, and the court need

not considet "unsupported
cotrobotation."

"ff]h.

assettions"

or

"self-serving opinions without objective

Euaru¡ u. Tech:. Applications dy Sera. Co., 80

F.3d g54,962 (4th Crt. 1,996).

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with the

affidavits" should be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movingpatq. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c); Gralt u. Farley 13 F.3d 1.42,1.45 (4th Cir. 1993) (citation and quotations omitted).

'Ín

essence, a sufiunatry judgment must be gtanted

if no genuine

issue

of material fact remains

such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for a nonmoving

patty."

Gra1,1,3 F.3d,

at1,45 (cittngAndersln u. Ube@ I-nbb1,Inc.,477 U.5.242,248 (1987)) (quotation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION
In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants

allege the following

grounds: (1) Plaintiff did not exhaust all of his adminisrative remedies before bringing this

action,

Q) the recotd

indicates that Plaintiff does

not suffer from permanent erectile

dysfunction, (3) Plaintiff fails to establish that the nurses acted with deliberate indifference, (4)
Sheriff Johnson is entitled to summaiy judgment, (5) the Court should find that Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity, (6) there is not a causal link between Defendants' actions
a

J

and Plaintiffs alleged injudes, and Q) all state law claims for medical negligence should be

dismissed. (Defs.' Summ. J. at26-30.)

A. Plaintiff

Failed to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs claim fails because he did not exhaust all of his
administrative temedies befote bringing this

action.

Pursuant

to the Prison Litigation

Refotm Act ("PLRA"), a ptisonet must exhaust all avulable administrative remedies pdor to

bdnging an acton "with respect to prison conditions" under 42U.S.C. S 1933.
Fields,61,6F.

Johnson

u.

App'" 599, 600 (4th Cit. 201,5); Hendritks u. Bames, No. 1:06CY799,2007 SfL

2257565, at x2 (À4.D.N.C. ,{.ug. 3,

2007). "Such exhaustion must be proper; that is, the

ptisoner must use all steps that the agency holds out and do so propedy." Johnson, 61,6 tr.

App'" at 600 (citation and quotation omitted). A plaintiff is not
exhaustion tequirement because he

or

occurred. Barnes,2007 WL 2257565,
allow such a bypass would permit

a

excluded from the

she is no longet at the facihty where the incident

at*2.

"The reason behind such a de is çls¿¡-¡s

pdsoner to evade the exhaustion requirement by filing no

administrative gdevance or by intentionally filing an untimely one and still gain access to
federal

forum."

a

Id.

Here, according to Nurse Tilley, the Detention Center's supervising nurse, a written
grievance ptocedute was available to all inmates dudng the course of Plaintiffs confinement.

(filley Aff.

f

42,Docket Entry

49.)

Inmates could file an "Inmate Medical Gdevance Form"

to complain about any aspect of medical teatment received. (Id.) The hospital staff
teviews and tesponds to all gdevances

filed. (Id.)
4

Additionally,

if

the inmate is unhappy

with the response, he has to appeal the grievance to senior members of the detention staff.

Qd.) This case concerns

events that took place betweenJantary 29,201,3, and Febru^ry 4,

201,3. (Compl. at 4-8, Docket Entry
allow þim] to teceive

a

2.)

Plaintiff atgues that the "Medical Staff refused to

medical gdevance." (Id.

at3.)

According to the Alamance County

Detention Centet Medical Records ("medical tecotds"), Plaintiff was ptovided with

a

gtievance form on February 3,2013, but Plaintiff chose not to file a gtievance with respect to
these circumstances.

CI.d. R. at 35, Docket Entry 59.) Therefore,

because Plaintiff has

failed to exhaust all administtative remedies, his claims are baned.2 Marral u. Dobltns, No.
1,:1,2CY21,4,201.3

WL

3326661,, at

*3 (À4.D.N.C.
July

1,,201,3) (fìnding that the

plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not appeal the denial of his grievances

which was tequired by the

Noth

Carohna Department

of

Corrections three

Administtative Remedy Procedve); Goodwin u. Beailey No. 1:09CV151,

201,1,

step

WL 835937, at

x3 (À4.D.N.C. Mat. 3,201.1) (finding that the plaintiffs conclusory allegations that prison
officials did not cooperate with him and that the gdevance process at the jail was defective are
not enough to excuse his failute to exhaust his administrative remedies).

B. The Nurses Did Not Act with Deliberate Indifference
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, surnmalT
judgment

is still ptoper because the nurses did not act with deliberate

indifference.

Genetally, "only governmental conduct that shocks the conscience is actionable as a violation

2

It is even more

that Plaintiff was aware of the grievance process because he filed five
^ppment
grievances between February 77,201,3, and March 11,201,3. (tVI.d. R. at 86, 91,93-95.)
5

of the Fourteenth Amendment." Parrisb ex rel. L.ee u. Cleueland,372 tr.3d 294,302 (4th Cir.
2004) (citation and quotations

to attend to a detainee's

omitted). "In cases where the government

serious medical

needs

indifference is viewed as sufficiently shocking
Fourteenth ,{mendment

claim."

is accused of failing

conduct that amounts to deliberate

to the conscience that it cân support

a

omitted). For Plaintiff

Id. at 302 (quotation and citation

to recover, he must establish that "[D]efendants actually knew of and disregarded a substantial
risk of serious injury to [Plaintiffl or that they actually knew of and ignored fPlaintiffls] serious
need for medical

c te."

Id.

Here, Plaintiff assetts that the nurses "acted with deliberate indifference to any and all

of his serious medical needs."

ß.rp.

Br. at2, Docket F.,nty

62.)

Plaintiff claims that once

he was dischatged from the emergency room the nurses at the Detention Center failed to
comply with the emergency room discharge insttuctions. (Compl. at 4, Docket Entry 2.)
,{.ccording to Plaintiff, the discharge instructions required him "to return to the emergency

room in (3 to 4) hours,

if the erection had not went

away . . .

." (Id.) Plaintiff states that

from the time he arived at the Detention Center onJanuary 29,201,3,untilJanuary 31,2013,
Plaintiff "declated medical emergencies, filled out sick calls and . . . begged and pleaded with
medical staff to send

þim] back to the hospital." (Id.)

the emergency room onJanuary 31,,201.3.

Qd)

Subsequently, Plaintiff was sent to

Plaintiff alleges that priot to going back to

the emetgency room, the "medical staff did not give or offer fPlaintiff] any type of pain
medication, ot do anything to try and relieve fPlaintiffl of

þs]

parn . . .

)'

Qd.

at5.)

Further,

Plaintiff alleges that upon retutning to the Detention Center his condition wotsened.
6

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that he "constandy begged for medical treatment and had
friends calling to the Medical Depattment."

Qd.) Plaintiff

þs]

family and

alleged that Nurse Fortner

examined Plaintiff and told him "that she was not going to do anything about fPlaintiffs]

cuffent

condition."

(Id.

at6.)

The next day Plaintiff was examined by Nurse Tilley and sent

back to the emergency room and eventually sent to the University of Notth Catohna Hospital

in Chapel Hill for an operation.

Qd.)

Contary to Plaintiffls allegations "the record evinces no medical ffeatment that

dses

to the level of deliberate indifference." Undsry u. I-.ewis, No. 1:11CY67,201,3 nfl- 4500690,
at *6 (À4.D.N.C. Aug. 21,,2013) (finding that the plaintiff failed to ptovide evidence to the

contrary that he "received the appropriate treatment

for the iniuries sustained'). "In

evaluating a medical care case, the Court may rely on medical records to . . . determine whether
the injury was in fact

serious."

Pulliam u. Saperintendent of Hoke Corr.,No. 1:05CV01000,2007

WL 4180743, at *3 (À4.D.N.C. Nov. 20,2007);

see

also Harden u. Green,27

tr. App'x

1,73,1,77

(4th Cir. 2001) (fìnding that an examination of the medical records showed that the plaintiffs

condition improved under the care of the physician that plaintiff alleged provided inadequate
medical treatment).

According to the medical records, upon his arival to the Detention Center, Plaintiff
was examined shortly after being

booked. (M.d.

R, at23-24, Docket Entry

59.)

PlaintifPs

vital signs were checked and there is nothing in the record indicating that Plaintrff
suffering from a medical emergency Qd.
^t

23.)

was

Addiuonally, the medical tecotds show

that Plaintiffs emergency room discharge instructions did not requite him to return to the
7

emergency room

if his erection did not cease within

4 hours:

Fot a recuffent priapism (erection greater than 4 hours) take ff]erbutaline 5 mg
tab every 6 hours as needed. If you still have an etection after 1. tab, you need
to be evaluated. Follow up with Dr. Walker in fl(]ernodle clinic. You
ultimately need to have further blood work for sickle cell trait done. Take
Sudafed as well with the ff]etbutaline.
(Id. at

26.)

The instructions expressly state that Plaintiff was to be given Terbutaline

erection lasted more than four

houts. (Id.) Futhermore,

medical staff complied with the

instructions by giving Plaintiff Terbutaline and Sudafed. (Id. at
indicate that Plaintiff did not compl ain of pain until

request.

Qd. at

if his

30)

J ànuairy 31. , 201,3,

The medical records

when he filed a sick call

31,.) Plaintiff was prompdy examined on the same day. (Id.) Neither

party disputes that Plaintiff was transported to the Alamance County Medical Center and
returned to the Detention Center on February
Summ.

2,2013.

(Compl. at 5, Docket Entry 2; Defs.'

J. at 1.1,.) Plaintiffs allegations that he was deprived of medical attention after

tetutning to the Detention Center on February 2,201,3, are insufficient to hold Defendants

liable.

Three nurses interacted with Plaintiff between the time he returned to the Detention

Center on the aftetnoon of Febtuary 2,2013, and the evening of February

3,2013.

(À4ed. R.

at 35-37, 46-47, Docket Entry 59.) First, Nurse Schenk indicated that, during his shift on
February 2,201,3, Plaintiff stated that he was doing much better than he did when he went to

the hospital and that his swelling was greatly reduced. (Id. at

35) At the stat of Nurse

Schenk's shift on February 3, 2013, he checked the Nurses' in-house communication log.

Qd.) Thete was "[no] mention of

any problems

with fPlaindfq."

(Id)

Latet that day,

Plaintiff expressed that he was upset that the Detention Center's medical doctor did not order
8

him any pain medication; however, Nurse Schenk, states that Plaintiff nevet
complained about

pain. Qd.)

Second, Nurse Fortner

actually

tepoted that at the beginning of her

shift on Febtuary 3,2013, Plaintiff complained to Nurse Schenk about swelling

pain.

(Id. at

36.)

Accotding to Nurse Fottner's report, Plaintiff asked het for pain medication. Qd. at

37.)

She replied that she would have to check with het supervisor

Plaintiff the medicine.
discussion

(Id.)

see

if

she could give

A.fter checking on other patients, Nurse Fortner had

with Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff discussed his concetns about his

Howevet, he did not verbalize

medication. (Id.)
grin on his

to

It

surgerT.

additional issues ot complaints, nor did he request pain

fact, Plaintiff "continued to discuss how big his penis was with a slight

face." (Id.)

being sent to UNC

^îy

a

Lastly, Nurse Schon repotted that Plaintiff approached het about

if his erection did not subside and whether

she had medication for him.

(d. at 46.) Later, Nurse Schon teviewed Plaintiffs medical recotd and rcaltzed that he was
supposed to receive medication prescribed by Doctor Stdckland that

evening. (Id. at 47.)

Nurse Schon returned to Plaintiffs cell and gave him the medication. Qd.)
The Coutt recognizes that thete is a contradiction between Nutse Schenk's and Nurse

Fortnet's reports. Nutse Schenk states that Plaintiff never complained about pain on
February 3,201,3, while Nutse Fortner reports that Nurse Schenk told Nurse Fortner that

Plaintiff complained about pain from swelling on that

date.

Qd. at

35-36.) In

fact no pain

medication was given to Plaintiff between February 2, 20'1.3, and Febru^ry 4, 201.3. Qd. at

36.)

Nonetheless, even

if the Coun were to find that the medical staffs failure to provide

pain medication fot Plaintiff fo t a day and

a,

half dudng
9

a

time in which his condition wotsened

constituted inadequate treatment, the nurses still cannot be found

liable. According

to Nurse

Tilley, "fuf" ugeneral rule Nurses . . . were not authodzedto prescribe ot dispense medication

without the orders of a Medical

Doctor." (Tilley Aff. 1127, Docket Entry 49.) Doctor

Stdckland, the Detention Center Doctor, made the decision to not ptescdbe Plaintiff pain
medication upon returning to the Detention Centet on February 2,201,3. Qd. at36.) The
Nurses cânnot be found liable fot something they do not have authoÅzattott to

Burris,

No. 1:13CV488,

rennmendation adopted,

20'15

WL

1,474909,

do.

Parker

a.

at x7 (I\4.D.N.C. Mar. 31., 201,5) reþort and

No. 1:13CV488, 2015 ìüL 21,69148 (I\4.D.N.C. May 8, 201,5) aÍ|d,623

F. App'x 82 (4th Cu. 201,5) (finding that because a nurse cannot ptescdbe medication,

"Plaintiffs assertion that het alleged inaction in regards to pain medicine amounted to
deliberate indifference" was meritless);

see

also

201,0) (holding that because a nurse could

Snith

u.

Harris,401 F. App'" 952,953 (5th Cit

not write presctiptions, the plaintiff failed to

establish that she acted with deliberate indifference by not prescribing him pain medication)

Therefore, Plaintiffs deliberate indifference claim with respect to the nurses fails

C. Nurses' Qualified Immunity
Summary judgment is also proper because the nurses are entitled to qualified immunity

"Detetmining whethet qualified immunity applies involves a two-prong inquiry: whether the
facts make out a violation of a constitutional
established at the time of defendant's alleged

2015
1 :1

lfT-

M74909, at x5 04.D.N.C.

rþht and whethet the right at issue was
misconduct."

Mar 31, 201,5) reþort

Parþ.er u.

cleady

Buris, No. 1:13CV488,

and recommendatiorc adoþted, No

3CV488 , 201,5 WL 21,69148 (À4.D.N.C. May 8, 201 5) aÍrd, 623 F. App'x 82 (4th Cu. 201,5);
10

Plumhof u. Nckard,134 S. Ct.201.2,2023 Q014) (cängAshtroft u. al- Kidd,131 S. Ct.2074,2080

Q01,1). The docttine of qualifìed immunity "balances two important interes¡s-1þs need to
hold public officials accountable when they exercise power itresponsibly and the need to shield
offìcials from harassment, disttaction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."
Reeues u. Ransom,

No. 1:10Cv56,201.4wL 1323173, at x7 (À4.D.N.C. Mar.

Pear¡on u. Callahan,555 U.S. 223,231.

the official asserting qualified

(2009).

immunity."

31.,20'1,4) (quoting

"The burden of proof and persuasion rests with

Id.

Plaintiff has not stated a claim for a constitutional violation; therefore, this Court
concludes that the nurses are entitled to qualified
415 (4th Cn.2007) (finding that

of

any

immunity.

See

Abnel u. Coe, 493 tr.3d

41,2,

"flf [an offìcial] did not violate any right, he is hardly in need

immunity and the analysis ends rþht then and thete"); Parker,201,5WL 7474909, at*B

(finding that "the absence of evidence supporting a finding that a constitutional violation
occurted satisfies the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis").

D. SheriffJohnson Did Not Act with Deliberate Indifference
Plaintiff alleges that SheriffJohnson is also liable for the medial staffs failute to provide
adequate

treatmerit. (Compl.

at 8,

DocketE,nty

2.)

Plaintiff filed this action against Sheriff

Johnson in his individual and offìcial capacity. Qd. at

9.)

Plaintiffs 1983 claim against

SheriffJohnson in his individual capaciq must be based upon supervisory liability or a failure

to train because the doctdne of
Cobbs ex re/. Cobbs a. CU. of

retpondeat søperior does

not apply under 42 U.S.C. S 1983.

Gaiford, No. 1:10CV806, 201,2WL 311.3141,, at *3 (À4.D.N.C. July

31,, 2012) reþort and retvmmendation adoþted as nodfied,
77

No. 1:10CV806,

201,2

WL

4508106

O4.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2012);

see also

Ashøoft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). plaintiff

contends that Sheriff Johnson:

had direct knowledge of [the] violations made by his medical staffing, via
receiving telephone calls ftom fPlaintiffsl family and friends and having
telephone convetsations with them. Still Sheriff . . . Johnson, chose to þore
the complaints from my family and friends. fPlaintiffl even wrote, Sheriff . . .
Johnson, a letterbut... received no reply. Shedff ...Johnson, did nottake
[any] type of actionfl at all, to get fPlaintiffl any type of medical treatment or to
[address] the direct violations made by his medical staffing.
(Compl. at 9, Docket Entry 2.)

in his supervisory capacity.

It

appeats that Plaintiff asserts that Sheriff Johnson is liable

Plaintiff must satis$' three elements to establish Sheriff

Johnson's supervisory liability:
(1) that the supervisor had acluralor constructive knowledge that his subordinate

in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable dsk of
constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; Q) that the supervisor's
response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference
to or tacit authorizatton of the alleged offensive practices; and (3) that there was
an'afftmative causal link between the supervisor's inaction and the particular
constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.
\áas engaged

ll/ilkins

u.

Montgonery,

T 51'

tr.3d 214, 226 (4th Cfu. 2014) (citation and quotation omitted);

Ir/rigbtu. Hi//,No. 1:03cv109,2004wL1,618591,arx5 (NI.D.N.C.July 16, 2004) (cittngShaw
u.

Stroud,13 F.3d 791,,799 (4th Cir. 1994)) (quotations

omitted). Plaintiff received adequate

treatment while detained at the Detention Center between Jatuary 29,201.3, andJanuary

31,,

201,3. Thetefote, the only time ftame in question Plaintiff could possibly seek relief is
between Febtuary

2, 201.3, and Febru^ry 4, 201,3.

conclusory allegations

However, Plaintiff only provides

to support his contention that Shetiff Johnson is liable in

his

supervisory capacity. Based on Plaintiffs conclusory allegations, the Court cânnot determine
72

if

Sheriff Johnson had knowledge of the fact that Plaintiff did not receive pain medication

between February 2,201.3, and Februalry

ditect knowledge

of the violations

conversations with Sheriff

4,201,3. Plaintiff states that Sheriff Johnson

because

Plaintiffs family and friends had

Johnson. (Compl. at 9, Docket F,nty

2.)

had

phone

Plaintiff does not

explain which family membets or ftiends, or even how many acttally called Sheriff Johnson.

It is unclear which alleged violations were discussed

during the phone conversations.

Moreover, the Court canflot determine whether these calls were made before, afte4 or at all
between, Febtuary 2,201,3, and February 4,20'1,3.

5819380, at x5 ([4.D.N.C.

Sffird

u.

Bameq

No. 1:14CV267,201,4Vtry-

Nov. 1,0, 201,4) (finding that the plaintiff failed to allege

facts

showing that a Shedff had acttal or constructive knowledge of the alleged constitutional
violation); I-a1nan

u.

Alexander,294 F. Supp. 2d784,794 CW.D.N.C. 2003) (concluding that

the plaintiff failed to provide facts to support his conclusory allegations that the Shedff failed

to properly supervise and ttain the jail and medical staff); see also Eaans u. Jffirson Cgl

No. CV-11-BF.-2131-5,

201,2

WL

174561,0,

Comm'n,

at *8 OJ.D. Ala. May 1.5, 201,2) (finding, in

pettinent part, that because the plaintiff failed to allege how the Sheriff had subjective
knowledge of the inmate's medical condition, the plaintiff could not establish that the Shedff
acted with deliberate indifference).

,\dditionally, Plaintiff contends that he "even wrote, Sheriff . . . Johnson, a letter but

fPlaintif{ teceived no

reply." Qd.)

Nevetheless, the Plaintiff does not ptoduce a copy

the lettet, not has Plaintiff explained the contents of the

letter.

of

Furthermote, Plaintiff alleges

that Shedff Johnson received the lettet between January 30, 2013, and February 1, 2013.
1,3

@ocket Entry 63-9

11

3.)

Therefore, because the letter was sent before February 2, 2013, the

date Plaintiff alleges he was denied pain medication, the letter did not put SheriffJohnson on

notice to adequately address Plaintiffs issue in accordance with the supervisory liability test.
Thus, because Plaintiff has "fail[ed] to properþ support an assertion
against SheriffJohnson in his individual capacity

fuls.

of fact," Plaintiffls claim

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

Next, Plaintiff contends that SheriffJohnson in liable in his official capacity. (Compl.
at 8,

DocketBnty

2.)

Howevet "such claims actually constitute a suit against the entity of

which those officials are agents-in this case," the Alamance County Sheriffs
u. IWhiraker,203 F. S.rpp.

2d 503,508 (1\4.D.N.C. 2002) aÍfd, 57 F. App'x

1,41,

Office.

Gantt

(4th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff must establish that an official policy or custom of the Sheriffs Offìce caused his injury

in order to survive summary judgment. Id. at 509. Plaintiff does not argue that an official
policy or custom caused his injury, nor does Plaintiff ptovide evidence to support his claim
against Sheriff Johnson

in his offìcial capacity. Plaintiff merely states that Shedff Johnson

was av/are of the inadequate treatment Plaintiff received and failed to do âflything about it.

Qd.) Thus, because Plaintiff did not provide

any facts o¡ evidence to support his claim, this

afgument fails.

E. Proximate cause
Defendants also contend that Plaintiff has not established a causal link between
Defendants'actions and Plaintiffs alleged injuries. "Constitutional torts, like their coûunon
law brethten, tequire a demonstration of both but-for and proximate causation." Huger
Anderson,

No. 1:12CV1242,2015 ïfL

1.525994,

14

u.

ú *4 (I\{.D.N.C. Apt. 2, 2015) report and

reLvmmendatizn adopted as modfied,

201,5) (citation and quotation
as

No. 1:12CY1.242,2015

omitted). "In

cases

ffl.

ß15893 (I\4.D.N.C. Apr. 27,

brought under

S 1983 a superseding cause,

traditionally understood in common law tott doctrine, will relieve a defendant of liability."

Id.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff has blamed two other parties, the ,{.lamance Regional

Hospital aqd Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page for

Entry

58).

the acts

of

injuries. (Defs.'Br. at 2g-3l,Docket

Defendants also assert that "Plaintiff . . . inflicted injury on his own penis through

self-mutilation descdbed

in the UNC Hospital records."

(Id. at

30.)

The

University of North Carohna Chapel Hill Hospital recotds ('UNC hospital records") indicated
that Plaintiff "is very manipulative and has a pattern of swallowing objects and also shoving
objects inside his penis, anything to avoid being in the prison

Docket Entry

60.)

cell." ([JNC Med. R.

^t

3, 5,

Defendants contend that instances of selÊmutilation happened after the

circumstances at issue here occutred between Jantary 29,201.3, and Februry 3,201,3. This

is possible considedng that the UNC hospital record describing Plaintiffs self-mutilation is
dated October

20,20"14.

Qd.

at3,5)

Plaintiff has a history of self-mutilation.

Inany event, the UNC hospital records indicate that

Qd)

Therefore, Plaintiff may have shoved objects

in his penis before or afterJanuar¡ 29,201,3.
Furthetmore, the nurses adequately addressed Plaintiffs medical needs; therefore, it is

unlikely that Defendants caused Plaintiffs injury. "Given these circumstances, the record
does not support a fìnding that Defendant represented the proximate cause
injudes, as tequired to establish liability under S 1983." Hager
15

a.

of Plaintiffs

Anderson,201.5WL 1525994,

at *4 (I4.D.N.C. Apr.

2,2015). Thetefore, it is recommended that Defendants' Motion for

Summary Judgment be granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

Fot the reasons stated herein, IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that
Defendants'Morion for SummaryJudgment (Docket E.tt"y 43) be GRANTED.

U

Âoril
L-t

1 . zorc

Durham, North Caroltna

16

Webster
States Magistrate Judge