Kinder v. Prime Care Medical, Inc. et al
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 59 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; denying Plaintiff's 62 Objections; granting Defendants West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authori ty and Western Regional Jail's 29 MOTION to Dismiss; granting Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., PrimeCare Medical of WV, Dominique Wong, and Head Nurse Does 1 and 2's 33 MOTION to Dismiss; granting Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., PrimeCare Medical of WV, Dominique Wong, and Head Nurse Does 1 and 2's 52 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION to Dismiss or, in the alternative, MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiff's 39 MOTION to Amend the Amended Complaint and DISMISSING this action WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 3/19/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
DEAN JACKSON KINDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-31596
PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC.;
PRIMECARE MEDICAL OF WV;
WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL &
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY,
an agency of the State of West Virginia;
WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL;
DOMINIQUE WONG;
HEAD NURSE DOES 1 and 2;
And UNNAMED CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AT THE
WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was referred to the Honorable Dwane L.
Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact
and recommendations for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate
Judge has submitted findings of fact and recommended that the Court grant Defendants West
Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority and Western Regional Jail’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 29); grant Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., PrimeCare Medical of WV,
Dominique Wong, and Head Nurse Does 1 and 2’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33); grant
Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., PrimeCare Medical of WV, Dominique Wong, and Head
Nurse Does 1 and 2’s Supplemental Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 52); deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (ECF No.
39); dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) with prejudice and remove this action
from the docket of the Court. Plaintiff, acting pro se, objects to some of these findings and
recommendations. Upon de novo review of the findings and recommendations, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 62) and ADOPTS and INCORPORATES the Proposed
Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 59).
Plaintiff raises several objections. First, Plaintiff objects to the denial of his motion for
appointment of counsel. ECF No. 62. The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion on the
grounds that Plaintiff does not have a colorable claim against the defendants. ECF No. 58.
Moreover, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion in a separate order, not as part of the
proposed findings and recommendations. ECF No. 58. Accordingly, this is not a proper
objection to the proposed findings and recommendations and the objection is DENIED.
Next, Plaintiff states: “The claim that medical treatment was adequate for the ongoing
problem is and would be very ludicrous.” ECF No. 62. Presumably, Plaintiff objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the PrimeCare
employees for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As
thoroughly explained in the proposed findings and recommendations, a plaintiff bears a heavy
burden in alleging sufficient facts to set out a plausible claim for deliberate indifference. ECF No.
59. Here, Plaintiff has not met this burden. His factual allegations do not demonstrate that his
medical needs were ignored. ECF No. 9. Rather, Plaintiff disagrees with the chosen course of
medical treatment. ECF No. 9; ECF No. 54. This is not sufficient to state a claim for deliberate
indifference. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985) (“Disagreements between
an inmate and a physician over the inmate’s proper medical care do not state a § 1983 claim unless
exceptional circumstances are alleged.”). Moreover, Plaintiff does not dispute the PrimeCare
-2-
employees’ statement of facts, which indicates that the defendants took reasonable steps to ensure
that Plaintiff received adequate medical care. See Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 389 (4th Cir.
2001) (holding that a defendant may not be found liable for deliberate indifference if he responds
reasonably to a risk to inmate health or safety). Therefore, this objection is DENIED.
Plaintiff also objects to logistical and institutional problems in the government, the prison
system, and hospitals, which he states have prevented him from properly stating a claim and which
demonstrate “intentional indifference to inmates [sic] welfare.” ECF No. 62. He also states that
these problems have caused him damage, pain, and suffering. ECF No. 62. This objection
challenges actions taken by the defendants and other institutions rather than the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Court thus finds this objection to be without merit
and it is DENIED.
Furthermore, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility
Authority (“WVRJCFA”) and Western Regional Jail (which is not a separate entity from the
WVRJCFA). ECF No. 62. Plaintiff contends that the Court has jurisdiction where there is a
clear violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. ECF No. 62. As the Magistrate Judge correctly
concluded, the Eleventh Amendment protects state agencies from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
including suits that allege violations of the Eighth Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The WVRJCFA is a state agency shielded by this immunity.
See Cantley v. W.V. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., 728 F. Supp. 2d. 803, 818 (S.D. W. Va.
2010) (“It is well established that the WVRJA is an agency of the State of West Virginia and is not
a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983.”). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over any
-3-
claims by the plaintiff against the WVRJCFA and Western Regional Jail. The objection is thus
DENIED.
Plaintiff’s next objection states that “it appears because he is not a learned counsel . . . he is
not entitled to anything.” ECF No. 62. The Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations
are based on the pleadings, motions, and applicable law, not on Plaintiff’s status or lack of counsel.
Plaintiff’s objection is without merit and is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s final objection accuses PrimeCare and other medical providers in the West
Virginia prison system of inadequate treatment and improper motives. ECF No. 62. This
objection challenges the defendants’ actions rather than the findings and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court finds this objection to be without merit and it is
DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS and INCORPORATES herein the
Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 59); DENIES Plaintiff’s
objections (ECF No. 62); GRANTS Defendants West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional
Facility Authority and Western Regional Jail’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 29); GRANTS
Defendants PrimeCare Medical, Inc., PrimeCare Medical of WV, Dominique Wong, and Head
Nurse Does 1 and 2’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33); GRANTS Defendants PrimeCare
Medical, Inc., PrimeCare Medical of WV, Dominique Wong, and Head Nurse Does 1 and 2’s
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
52); DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 39) and
DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy
of this written Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
-4-
ENTER:
-5-
March 19, 2015
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?