Halter v. Hutcheson et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 8/17/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)

Case 7:20-cv-00304-JLK-RSB Document 9 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
DANIEL N. HALTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRYAN F. HUTCHESON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

AUG 17 2020

Civil Action No. 7:20cv00304
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By: Hon. Jackson L. Kiser
Senior United States District Judge

Plaintiff Daniel N. Halter, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bryan Hutcheston, Lauren J, and John Doe. Halter alleges
he was denied adequate dental treatment but does not allege how any of the named defendants
were involved in denying him dental treatment. By order entered July 13, 2020, the court
conditionally filed Halter’s complaint, advised him that the complaint failed to state a federal
claim against because it failed to allege any facts against or conduct committed by a defendant,
and gave Halter the opportunity to file an amended complaint. [See ECF No. 8.] Halter did
not file an amended complaint. To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
facts indicating that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of
the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person
acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). To state a cognizable
Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to
demonstrate that an official was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976); Conner v. Donnelly, 42 F.3d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1994); Staples
v. Va. Dep’t of Corr., 904 F. Supp. 487, 492 (E.D. Va. 1995). Despite being given the

Case 7:20-cv-00304-JLK-RSB Document 9 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 32

opportunity to amend his complaint, Halter has failed to allege any facts against or conduct
committed by the named defendants and, thus, he has not alleged sufficient facts to show that
any of the named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical need. Accordingly,
Halter’s complaint fails to state a claim against the named defendants and, thus, I will dismiss
this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2020.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE