Taylor v. D.C.S.O. et al

Filing 33

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation ( 29 ) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The Motions to Dismiss of Defendants Hall and Taylor ( 15 , 21 ) are GRANTED. The claims against Defendants Hall and Taylor in their personal capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDIC E. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County is SUBSTITUTED as the proper defendant for the claims against Hall and Taylor in their official capacities. Hall and Taylor are therefore dismissed from this action. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 3/8/19. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
SETH TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
D.C.S.O., ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-cv-1359
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Plaintiff brings claims related to a scabies outbreak at the Davidson County Detention
Center, which is overseen by Defendants Sheriff Daron Hall and Warden Harold Taylor. Before
the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29) in which the Magistrate Judge
recommends granting Motions to Dismiss brought by Defendants Hall and Taylor (Doc. Nos. 15;
21). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficiently the
requisite personal involvement by either Hall or Taylor to maintain Section 1983 claims against
them in their individual capacities, because the misconduct Plaintiff alleges is failure to diagnose
and treat by CoreCivic and its employees (who are not Defendants in this action) with whom Hall
and Taylor were not personally involved. The Magistrate Judge further concludes that, because the
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) has accepted service and
is now a defendant in this action, it is appropriate to dismiss the claims against Hall and Taylor in
their official capacities. No objections have been filed. 1

1

The Report and Recommendation was initially returned as undeliverable to the Court. However,
Plaintiff filed a change of address, and the Report and Recommendation was re-mailed to the new
address with the full period for filing objections allowed.

After review of the Complaint and relevant authority, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis. Regarding the individual capacity claims, “a supervisory official’s failure to
supervise, control or train [an] offending individual is not actionable unless the supervisor either
encouraged the specific incident of misconduct or in some other way directly participated in it.”
Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated
differently, allegations of “personal involvement” are required to pursue a claim against a
supervisor. Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d 803, 817 n.3 (6th Cir. 2005). “At a minimum, a
[Section] 1983 plaintiff must [allege] that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized,
approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate.”
Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 575 (6th Cir. 2008). The Complaint clearly alleges that the
medical personnel of the Detention Center did not respond to his needs. Plaintiff does not allege
that Hall or Taylor – non-medical personnel who supervise the Detention Center at the highest
level – had any knowledge of or participation in this allegedly unconstitutional conduct.
Concerning the official capacity claims, it is axiomatic that an official capacity suit is, “in
all respects other than a name, to be treated as a suit against the [governmental] entity.” Kentucky
v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985); see also, e.g., Warren v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, Civil
No. 3:14-cv-2373, 2015 WL 3417844, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. May 27, 2015) (observing that, “as
employees of Metro,” the police officer defendants had “no official capacity in which they can be
sued”). Here, Hall and Taylor are Metro officials, and Metro has voluntarily entered the case as
the proper defendant for Plaintiff’s official capacity claims.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29) is APPROVED AND
ADOPTED. The Motions to Dismiss of Defendants Hall and Taylor (Doc. Nos. 15; 21) are
GRANTED. The claims against Defendants Hall and Taylor in their personal capacities are

2

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County is SUBSTITUTED as the proper defendant for the claims against Hall and Taylor in their
official capacities. 2 Hall and Taylor are therefore dismissed from this action.
This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further case management.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

The Clerk is DIRECTED to add Metro as the remaining defendant in this case.
3