Pitts v. North Central Regional Jail et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. It is ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, it is ORDERED that this case be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Co urt. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 6/4/2014. (copy to Pro Se Plaintiff via Cert. Mail, rrr; copy to counsel of record via CM/ECF) (nmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/4/2014: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (nmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
JAMES E. PITTS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 5:13CV100
(STAMP)

NORTH CENTRAL REGIONAL JAIL,
GEORGE TRENT, Warden,
LIEUTENANT RODGER ELDER,
OFFICER BOCKINS, OFFICER RIDDLE,
OFFICER BRIAN CRADDOCK,
OFFICER TAYLOR, OFFICER MAYS
and CORPORAL HENTHORNE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I.

Background

The pro se1 plaintiff, James E. Pitts, Jr., commenced this
civil rights action by filing a complaint against the defendants,
North Central Regional Jail, Warden George Trent, Lieutenant Rodger
Elder, Officer Bockins, Officer Riddle, Officer Brian Craddock,
Officer Taylor, Officer Mays, and Corporal Henthorne, in this Court
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In his complaint, the plaintiff

claims generally that his civil rights were violated.

He asserts

failure to protect claims and excessive force claims.

He further

1

“Pro se” describes a person who represents himself in a court
proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.
Black’s Law
Dictionary 1416 (10th ed. 2014).

asserts that the defendants interfered with his right to file
administrative remedies.
The plaintiff maintains that these claims arise out of an
incident that occurred on September 18, 2010.

The plaintiff

alleges that he was attacked by another inmate while at the North
Central Regional Jail in Greenwood, West Virginia as a pretrial
detainee.

After the attack, the plaintiff claims that he was

ordered to the ground by Officer Riddle, and pinned there by
Officer Bockins.

While pinned to the floor, the plaintiff asserts

he was pepper-sprayed by an unnamed officer.

Further, plaintiff

asserts that Officer Craddock sat on his lower back, and twisted
his feet and ankles and bent his toes.

Thereafter, the plaintiff

states that he was handcuffed, shackled, and was picked up to exit
the housing pod.

Upon exiting the housing pod, the plaintiff

alleges that Officer Bockins slammed his face into a steel door
causing a laceration above his right eye.

After slamming him into

the door, the plaintiff contends that Officer Bockins yelled to
Corporal Henthorne that the plaintiff fell. When the plaintiff was
taken for medical care at the jail and then the emergency room, he
asserts that the officers told the nurse and doctors that he fell.
The plaintiff states that he received 12 to 15 stitches for the
wound.

He further maintains that the officers told him that he

would be sorry if he brought any legal action and that is why he
waited until he was out of West Virginia custody to file this

2

action.

As relief, the plaintiff seeks $250,000.00 for his pain

and suffering and $250,000.00 for future damages and medical
services.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, in which they argue
that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for the failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Specifically,

the defendants argue that: (1) the plaintiff’s claims are untimely
and thus, should be dismissed as a matter of law; (2) no claim,
including but not limited to a claim under respondeat superior, is
available against Warden George Trent; (3) the plaintiff’s claims
should be dismissed because he failed to exhaust all available
administrative

remedies;

(4)

the

plaintiff’s

injuries

are

de

minimis in nature and, thus, should be dismissed as a matter of
law; and (5) the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
In accordance with Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation Procedure
2, this case was referred to United States Magistrate James E.
Seibert

for

Magistrate

initial

Judge

review

Seibert

and

issued

report
a

report

and
and

recommendation.
recommendation

recommending that the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with
prejudice as untimely, frivolous, malicious, and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
judge

advised

the

parties

that,

pursuant

The magistrate
to

28

U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C), any party may file written objections to his
proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being

3

served a copy of the report and recommendation.

No party filed

objections to the report and recommendation.
II.

Applicable Law

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct
a

de

novo

review

of

any

portion

of

the

magistrate

recommendation to which objection is timely made.

judge’s

Because no

objections were filed, all findings and recommendations will be
upheld unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
III.
A.

Discussion

North Central Regional Jail
As outlined by Magistrate Judge Seibert in his report and

recommendation, suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be brought
against a “person.”
(1982).

Rendall-Baker v. Kohn, 547 U.S. 830, 838

It is established law that governmental entities such as

jails and courts are not “persons” under § 1983, and are thus not
amenable to suit under the statute.
State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).

See Will v. Mich. Dept. of

Accordingly, this Court agrees

with the magistrate judge and finds no clear error in his finding
that, as a matter of law, the North Central Regional Jail is an
improper defendant in this action.

As such, the plaintiff failed

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the North
Central Regional Jail; therefore, the action must be dismissed as
to it.

4

B.

Statute of Limitations
As to the remaining defendants, the magistrate judge next

found that such claims were barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. The applicable statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action is based on the state limitations period applicable
to personal injury claims.

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985).

Under West Virginia law, the statute of limitations for a personal
injury action is two years.

W. Va. Code § 55-2-12.

Therefore, a

two-year statute of limitations applies to the plaintiff’s § 1983
claims in this case.

This Court finds no clear error in the

magistrate judge’s finding concerning the statute of limitations.
The plaintiff’s claims against the defendants are time-barred
because, as the magistrate judge notes, the plaintiff did not file
his complaint until August 5, 2013, almost three years after the
incident on September 18, 2010 occurred.
C.

Sufficiency of the Allegations
The

magistrate

judge

further

found

that

the

plaintiff’s

failure to protect claims and claims that he was denied access to
the administrate remedy process are insufficiently pled and must be
denied as such.

Further, the magistrate judge found that the

plaintiff’s claims are impossible to give any credence to because
a cursory review of the record indicates that they are also
frivolous and malicious.

The magistrate judge stated that the

defendants attached multiple incident reports from various West

5

Virginia Regional Jail staff proving that the plaintiff was the
aggressor in the fight, that he had no visible injury from the
fight, that he refused to desist when ordered to, that he became
combative and aggressive toward officers, that he resisted being
shackled and had to be pepper-sprayed and physically restrained to
be subdued, and that the eye injury was a result of him tripping
and hitting his head on the door frame while being escorted through
a door.

Further, the defendants also attached an email from the

Warden regarding a letter intercepted by the mail delivery officer
showing

that

the

plaintiff’s

girlfriend

was

attempting,

on

plaintiff’s behalf, to bribe a fellow inmate to get other inmates
to make false accusations against the staff.
After reviewing the record, this Court finds no clear error in
the magistrate judge’s finding that the plaintiff’s claims that
defendants failed to protect him and denied him access to the
administrate remedy process are insufficiently pled and must be
dismissed.

Further, after reviewing the documents cited by the

magistrate judge concerning the plaintiff’s claims, this Court also
finds no clear error with the magistrate judge’s finding that the
plaintiff’s claims are frivolous, and should also be dismissed as
such under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, this Court finds no clear
error in the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and

6

it is therefore AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety.
ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

It is

Furthermore,

it is ORDERED that this case be STRICKEN from the active docket of
this Court.
Finally, this Court finds that the plaintiff was properly
advised by the magistrate judge that failure to timely object to
the report and recommendation in this action would result in a
waiver of appellate rights.

Because the plaintiff has failed to

object, he has waived his right to seek appellate review of this
matter.

See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 844-45 (4th Cir.

1985).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this memorandum
opinion and order to the pro se plaintiff by certified mail and to
counsel of record. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58,
the Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter.
DATED:

June 4, 2014

/s/ Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7