Bellamy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James R. Spencer on 2/8/08. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
Bellamy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center et al
Doc. 10
Case 3:07-cv-00564-JRS
Document 10
Filed 02/11/2008
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
I
a
%
,
E
t
RICHMOND. »/(*
I
JAMES EDWARD BELLAMY, JR., Plaintiff, v. CHESAPEAKE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et at, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a former Virginia inmate, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiffs Civil Action No. 3:07CVS64
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) will be GRANTED. The matter is before
the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e}(2). Jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I343(a)(3). I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Magistrate Judge made the following findings and recommendations: The Court must dismiss any action in which the plaintiff Is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines the action (1) "is frivolous" or (2) "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The first
Standard includes claims based upon '"an indisputably mcritless legal theory,1" or
claims where the '"factual contentions are clearly baseless.1" Clay v. Yates, 809 F.
Supp. 417, 427 (F..D. Va. 1992) [quoting Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 3 19, 327 (1989)). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Parly oj'N.C. v.
R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a
Martin, 980 F.2d 943. 952 (4th Cir. 1992) {citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations
are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Maikari. 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:07-cv-00564-JRS
Document 10
Filed 02/11/2008
Page 2 of 3
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[] only 'a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell All. Corp. v. Twombfy, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,47 (1957)). Courts long have cited the "rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [a]
claim which would entitle him [or her] to relief." Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46. In Bell Atlantic Corp., the Supreme Court noted that the complaint need not assert "detailed factual allegations," but must contain "more than labels and
conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." 127
S. Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). Thus, the "[fjactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," id. at 1965 (citation omitted), to one that is "plausible on its face," id. at 1974, rather than
"conceivable." Id. Therefore, in order for a claim or complaint to survive
dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) {citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309
F.3d 193,213 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270,281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241,243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton,
775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998). The only defendants Plaintiff has named are the Richmond City Jail
and the Chesapeake Correctional Center. Neither of these institutions qualifies as
a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail,
722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989) (citing cases). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the action be DISMISSED.
(Jan. 11,2008 Report and Recommendation.) The Court advised Plaintiff that he could file
objections or an amended complaint within ten (10) days of the date of entry thereof. Plaintiff
did not file objections.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
Case 3:07-cv-00564-JRS
Document 10
Filed 02/11/2008
Page 3 of 3
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court." Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408,410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). "The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this
Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation without conducting a de novo review.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005), cert,
denied, 546 U.S. 1091 (2006).
III. CONCLUSION
There being no objections and upon review of the record and the Report and
Recommendation, the Report and Recommendation will be ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED, and
the action will be DISMISSED. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to note the disposition of the
action for purposes 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: 3~-l-ol
Richmond, Virginia
1st James R. Spencer
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?