Brantner v. North Central Regional Jail et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 34 ) AND DISMISSING 1983 COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE (DKT. NO. 1 ). The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's 34 Report and Recommendation; Grants the Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendan ts North Central Regional Jail and Administrator at North Central Regional Jail (Dkt. No. 18 ); Grants the Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Andrea Huffman, M.D. (Dkt. No. 20 ) and DISMISSES the co mplaint WITH PREJUDICE (Dkt. No. 1 ). The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment order in this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 2/20/18. (Copy PS Plaintiff via cert. mail)(mh) (Main Document 37 replaced on 2/20/2018) (mh). Modified on 2/20/2018 to replace with correct document. NEF regen (mh). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/20/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BRIAN LANCE BRANTNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16CV223
(Judge Keeley)

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL;
DR. HUFFMAN; NURSE STAFF;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS STAFF;
and ADMINISTRATOR AT NCRJ,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 34]
AND DISMISSING § 1983 COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
On November 21, 2016, the pro se plaintiff, Brian Lance
Brantner (“Brantner”), filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against defendants North Central Regional Jail (“NCRJ”), Dr.
Huffman, Nurse Staff, Correctional Officers Staff, and the NCRJ
Administrator

(Dkt.

No.

1).

Liberally

construed,

Brantner’s

complaint seeks $50 million and alleges that the defendants engaged
in medical malpractice or violated his Eighth Amendment rights by
improperly treating him for injuries sustained when he “fell down
the steps.” Id. at 7-10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local
rules, the Court referred the complaint to the Honorable Michael J.
Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge, for initial review.
On

April

3,

2017,

Dr.

Huffman,

NCRJ,

and

the

NCRJ

Administrator moved to dismiss Brantner’s complaint pursuant to

BRANTNER V. NCRJ, ET AL.

1:16CV223

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 34]
AND DISMISSING § 1983 COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. Nos. 18; 20).1 NCRJ and
the NCRJ Administrator argued that the Eleventh Amendment bars
Brantner’s claims, that Brantner failed to state a cognizable
Eighth

Amendment

claim,

and

that

he

failed

to

exhaust

his

administrative remedies (Dkt. No. 19). Dr. Huffman argued that
Brantner’s complaint failed to state a claim for the deprivation of
his constitutional rights, and that Brantner had failed to comply
with

the

pre-suit

requirements

for

maintaining

a

medical

malpractice claim (Dkt. No. 20-1). Brantner responded to the
defendants’ contentions on April 14, 2017 (Dkt. Nos. 27; 28).
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered on January 22,
2018, Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended that the Court grant the
defendants’ motions and dismiss Brantner’s complaint with prejudice
(Dkt. No. 34). As an initial matter, he reasoned that NCRJ is not
a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that
Brantner

never

alleged

any

personal

involvement

or

facts

establishing that the NCRJ Administrator should be held liable in
his supervisory capacity. Id. 10-13. With regard to Dr. Huffman,
the R&R concluded that Brantner’s complaint failed to state a claim
for deliberate indifference, and agreed that Brantner had not

1

Although Magistrate Judge Aloi gave Brantner additional time
to identify the “nurse staff” and “correctional officers staff”
named in his complaint, Brantner never did so (Dkt. Nos. 10; 21).
2

BRANTNER V. NCRJ, ET AL.

1:16CV223

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 34]
AND DISMISSING § 1983 COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
complied with the pre-suit requirements for bringing a medical
malpractice claim under West Virginia law. Id. at 17-26. Finally,
Magistrate Judge Aloi recommended that the Court dismiss the John
Doe and Jane Doe defendants, given that Brantner had failed to
identify them for a period of nearly fourteen months. Id. at 26-27.
The R&R also informed Brantner of his right to file “written
objections identifying those portions of the recommendation to
which objection is made and the basis for such objections.” Id. at
28. It further warned that the failure to do so may result in
waiver of the right to appeal. Id. Although the Court’s docket
reflects that Brantner received the R&R on January 25, 2018 (Dkt.
No. 36), he has not filed any objections.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review
de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). On the other hand, “the Court may
adopt,

without

recommendations

explanation,
to

which

any

the

of

the

prisoner

magistrate
does

not

judge’s
object.”

Dellacirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04 (N.D.W. Va.
2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)).
Courts will uphold those portions of a recommendation to which no
objection has been made unless they are “clearly erroneous.” See

3

BRANTNER V. NCRJ, ET AL.

1:16CV223

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 34]
AND DISMISSING § 1983 COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 1]
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005).
Because

no

party

has

objected,

the

Court

is

under

no

obligation to conduct a de novo review of the R&R. Dellacirprete,
479 F. Supp. 2d at 603-04. Upon review of the R&R and the record
for clear error, the Court:
1)

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 34);

2)

GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendants
North Central Regional Jail and Administrator at North
Central Regional Jail (Dkt. No. 18);

3)

GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternative
Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Andrea Huffman,
M.D. (Dkt. No. 20); and

4)

DISMISSES the complaint WITH PREJUDICE (Dkt. No. 1).

It is so ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to counsel of record and the pro se plaintiff, certified mail and
return receipt requested, to enter a separate judgment order, and
to remove this case from the Court’s active docket.
DATED: February 20, 2018.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4