McCoy v. Kelly
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 6/22/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
ANTHONY McCOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:11CV643
LORETTA K. KELLY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, brings this
civil rights action.
The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
I. BACKGROUND
The Magistrate Judge made the following findings and recommendations:
Preliminary Review
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") this Court must
dismiss any action filed by a prisoner 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); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The first standard includes claims
based upon "'an indisputably meritless legal theory,'" or claims where the
'"factual contentions are clearly baseless.'" Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427
(E.D. Va. 1992) {quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 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 Party ofN.C v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5A
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356
(1990)). In considering a 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. Matkari, 7 F.3d
1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This principle
applies only to factual allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to
dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no
more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
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 Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second
alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and
conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id.
at 555 (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient "to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level," id. (citation omitted), stating a claim
that is "plausible on its face," id. at 570, rather than merely "conceivable." Id.
"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Bell Atl Corp, 550
U.S. at 556). 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 ofHampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Summary of Allegations
McCoy alleges that on September 21, 2011, he received a memo from
Warden Kelly wherein she accused him of abusing the grievance procedure.
McCoy further alleges:
I get wronged by these people so much. They force me to file a
1983 action. These people do so many things to give me a
severely hard time and wa[t]ch me suffer. The Warden refuses to
help me resolve anything, or even talk to me but all of a sudden
she wants to accuse me of abusing the grievance procedure, & she
limits my use of it.
(Compl. 5.)1 McCoy requests to be moved to a different prison. McCoy names
Warden Kelly as the sole defendant. (Id. at 1.)
Analysis
In order to state a viable claim against an individual 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 lawof the
The Court has corrected the capitalization inthe quotations to McCoy's complaint.
2
United States. See Dowe v. TotalAction Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145
F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). McCoy has not alleged
facts that plausibly suggest Defendant Kelly violated his constitutional rights. See
Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) ("[T]here is no constitutional right
to participate in grievance proceedings." (citing Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729
(8th Cir. 1991))). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the action be
dismissed for failure to state a claim.
(April 24, 2012 Report and Recommendation (alterations in original).) The Court advised
Plaintiff that he could file objections or an amended complaint within fourteen (14) days after the
entry of the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff has not responded.
IL STANDARD OF REVIEW
"The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
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)(1). "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, 414 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 Diamondv. ColonialLife & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).
III. CONCLUSION
There being no objections, the Report and Recommendation will be accepted and
adopted. Plaintiffs claims and the action will be dismissed. The Clerk will be directed to note
the disposition of the action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: i'd^'lv^
Richmond, Virginia
is/
James R. Spencer
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?