Nowell v. Kumer et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 11/17/2015. (slt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
ROBERT NOWELL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN KUMER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:15cv00461
By: Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Nowell, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Superintendant Martin Kumer, Major Rowland, Dr. Juanita
Morris, and Nurse Workman, all staff at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. Having
reviewed the complaint, the court finds that Nowell’s allegations are far too vague to state a
cognizable federal claim against any defendant.
Nowell alleges that he “completed a sick call describing a pre-existing condition,” but
because he received no response “in an appropriate time frame,” he requested a grievance form.
He also alleges that he informed the medical department that the “Urology Dept. U.V.A[.] has
records.” Finally, Nowell alleges that he received a response from Dr. Morris and Nurse
Workman stating that he did not have a pre-existing condition, but “no tests were performed to
confirm or deny these findings.” As relief, Nowell asks the court to end his mental and physical
suffering.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that
plaintiff has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States
and that this deprivation resulted from conduct by a person acting under color of state law. West
v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A plaintiff must assert factual allegations that raise a right

to relief that is “plausible on its face,” not one that is speculative or merely “conceivable.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court must dismiss an action or claim
filed by a prisoner against an employee of a governmental entity if the action or claim is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). The court finds that Nowell’s allegations in his complaint are far too vague to
state a cognizable federal claim against any defendant, and, therefore, the court will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1).
Entered: November 17, 2015.

Elizabeth K. Dillon
United States District Judge