The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
MARTINSBURG
ANTONIO COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:19-CV-74
(GROH)
MICHAEL MARTIN, Warden,
KELLY LANTHAM, Chief of Security,
DIANE ROBIN MILLER, Deputy Warden,
THOMAS HARLAN,
Associate Warden of Security, and
SHERRY DAVIS,
Associate Warden of Programs,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) of United States
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action
was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate
Judge Trumble issued his R&R [ECF No. 28] on May 7, 2020. Therein, Magistrate Judge
Trumble recommends that Plaintiff=s § 1983 complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim.
I. Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of
the magistrate judge=s findings where objection is made. However, the Court is not
required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions
of the magistrate judge to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a
petitioner’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28.U.S.C..' 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour,
889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.
1984).
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble=s R&R were due within fourteen plus three
days of service. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff accepted service
of Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R on May 11, 2020. ECF No. 29. On May 21, 2020,
Plaintiff filed his objections. ECF No. 30. Accordingly, this Court will review the portions
of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects de novo.
II. Background
Plaintiff is a state inmate incarcerated at the Huttonsville Correctional Center
(“HCC”) in Huttonsville, West Virginia. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Therein, Plaintiff asserts seventeen
claims against named Defendants for allegedly violating his constitutional rights, as well
as his rights provided under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.1 These claims
address various facility policies relating to housing arrangements, recreational activities,
visitation, inmate mail and privacy concerns in showers. Plaintiff also alleges that named
Defendants denied him access to educational programming and denied grievances
relating to his safety concerns. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff avers that he was
verbally abused, subjected to a hostile environment and was prevented from completing
1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights “is a non-binding declaration that provides no private rights
of action.” United States v. Chatman, 351 F. App'x 740, 741 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing to Sosa v. Alvarez-
Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004)). Therefore, the Court will only consider Plaintiff’s objections as it
relates to alleged violations of his Fourth, Eighth, Fifteenth and Eighteenth Amendment rights.
a correspondence course that would assist him working on his case. For relief, which he
reiterates in his objections, Plaintiff seeks (1) a declaration that the acts and omissions
described in his complaint amounted to violations of his constitutional rights; (2)
compensatory damages for postage and filing fees related to his complaint; (3)
compensatory damages for the total amount of the correspondence course; and (4) any
other just and equitable relief the Court deems necessary. ECF No. 30 at 5.
III. Applicable Law
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in relevant part that:
“[e]very person who, under the color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage…subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States…to the deprivation of any rights…secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in any action at law [or] suit in
equity…”
Section 1983 is not a source of substantive rights; rather, it provides “a method for
vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.
3 (1979). To bring a civil rights complaint, the prisoner must allege that he was deprived
of a federal or constitutional right by a person acting under color of state law. Gomez v.
Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). To establish
personal liability under § 1983, a prisoner must “affirmatively show[ ] that the official
charged acted personally in the deprivation of [his] rights. The doctrine of respondeat
superior has no application under this section.” Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850
(1985). In other words, the official charged can be held liable only if he had personal
knowledge of and involvement in the alleged deprivation of the prisoner’s rights. Id.
Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to § 1983 liability. Under this doctrine,
government officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from
liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established
statutory or constitutional rights which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow
v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “Qualified immunity balances two important
interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power
irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability
when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231
(2009). Therefore, government officials are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983
unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness
of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” D.C. v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589
(2018).
IV. Discussion
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint
should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. In support, Judge Trumble finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under § 1983
for three reasons. First, Plaintiff fails to allege Defendants’ personal knowledge of and
involvement in the alleged deprivation of rights as required under the § 1983 framework.
While he names five supervisory employees of the State of West Virginia, Plaintiff does
not allege specific actions taken by any of these individuals that directly violated his
constitutional rights. Second, Plaintiff’s factual allegations fail to overcome Defendants’
entitlement to qualified immunity. Specifically, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to demonstrate
that named Defendants acted outside the scope of their discretionary functions. Lastly,
and most fatal to his complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege that he suffered physical injury from
Defendants’ alleged actions.
Rather than objecting to Judge Trumble’s specific findings, Plaintiff objects to the
following sectional paragraphs of the R&R: “Paragraph 2 of the Introduction section;
paragraph[s] 2 and 3 of the Factual and Procedural History section, Section 4: Analysis.”
ECF 30 at 2. Plaintiff also attached two exhibits relating to the correspondence course:
(1) HCC Unit Manager’s response to Grievance No. 18-HCC-D-534, dated August 20,
2018, and (2) an Inmate Interview Request form, completed on July 31, 2018. See ECF
Nos. 30-1, 30-2. The Court liberally construes these objections and will address each in
turn.
First, Plaintiff takes issue with Judge Trumble’s overall recommendation that his
complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In support, Plaintiff
reemphasizes Claim 5 of his complaint, wherein he alleges that all named Defendants
denied him an equal opportunity to further educate himself by entering into a binding
contract with Blackstone Career Institute for the correspondence course. However, with
regard to this claim, Plaintiff still fails to allege personal involvement, physical injury, as
well as demonstrate that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The attached
Inmate Interview Request form does not indicate that Plaintiff was denied an opportunity
to continue the correspondence course. Rather, Plaintiff was advised that he needs
follow certain procedures for educational programs and pay for the course in full before
continuing his studies. ECF No. 30-2. Therefore, the Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Next, Plaintiff objects to Judge Trumble’s finding that he did not claim physical
injuries from the alleged violations of his constitutional rights. However, even if Plaintiff’s
allegation that Defendants prevented him from completing the correspondence course is
accepted as true, this violation does not constitute physical injury. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(e), inmates may not recover for “mental or emotional injury suffered while in
custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act (as
defined in section 2246 of Title 18).” On its face, Plaintiff’s complaint lacks any assertion
or reference to physical injury suffered. Lastly, Plaintiff contends that his complaint meets
the pleadings requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that
the factual allegations contained therein are sufficient to show violations of his
constitutional rights. Yet, as indicated earlier, Plaintiff’s complaint and the exhibits
attached to his objections do not demonstrate that he suffered physical injury, nor do they
allege personal involvement on behalf of named Defendants as required under the § 1983
framework. Moreover, Plaintiff offers no response to Defendants’ entitlement to qualified
immunity. Accordingly, upon careful review and consideration, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s objections must be overruled.
V. Conclusion
For the reasons provided herein, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate Judge
Trumble=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 28] should be, and is hereby,
ORDERED ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20] is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s § 1983 Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
It is furthered ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Original
Complaint [ECF No. 31] be TERMINATED as MOOT.
This matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. The Clerk
of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Petitioner by certified mail, return
receipt requested, at his last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
DATED: May 29, 2020
GINA 7GROH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE