Williams v. Bob Barker, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT CHARLESTON

STEVEN M. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00436

OFFICER MURPHY, LIEUTENANT

DAVID CAVENDISH, and OFFICER

TIMOTHY PERKINS, in their

official capacities and

individually, and BOB BARKER

COMPANY, INC.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are two motions to dismiss. First is the

motion of defendants Officer Murphy (“Murphy”), Lieutenant David

Cavendish (“Cavendish”), and Officer Timothy Perkins (“Perkins”)

(together, the “Correctional Defendants”), filed October 8,

2021. ECF No. 14. Second is the motion of defendant Bob Barker

Company, Inc. (“Bob Barker Co.”), filed November 4, 2021. ECF

No. 22.

This action was previously referred to Dwane L.

Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for proposed findings

of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the standing order in this district.

On June 2, 2022, the magistrate judge submitted his Proposed

Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) regarding the two pending

motions to dismiss, wherein he recommends

that the presiding District Judge grant the

Correctional Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss

the claims against Defendants Murphy, Perkins, and

Cavendish in their entirety. It is further

respectfully recommended that the presiding District

Judge grant in part [Bob Barker Co.’s] motion to

dismiss, with respect to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims

against it, and deny in part [Bob Barker Co.’s] motion

to dismiss, with respect to Plaintiff’s state law

claim grounded in products liability and/or

negligence, and leave this matter referred to the

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for

additional proceedings concerning Plaintiff’s state

law claim pending amendment thereof.

PF&R 19, ECF No. 35 (citations omitted). Plaintiff Steven M.

Williams (“Williams”), who is proceeding pro se, timely objected

to the PF&R on June 17, 2022. See Williams Obj., ECF No. 37.

The defendants did not respond, and the matter is now ripe for

disposition.

Williams lodges only one objection to the PF&R. He

argues that the magistrate judge erred by finding that the

Correctional Defendants in their individual capacities are

entitled to qualified immunity against his § 1983 claim. See

id. at 1-2. To summarize, Williams alleges that on May 26,

2020, his prison-issued toothbrush, supplied by Bob Barker Co.,

somehow shed metal flakes that stuck into and cut his gums. See

Compl. ¶¶ 8-11, 25. Williams asserts that the incident caused

him to bleed heavily and to suffer pain. Id. ¶ 24; see also id.

¶ 17. The Correctional Defendants, Williams alleges, denied him

medical attention even though he requested it four times, and

instead “gave [him] a salt shaker . . . and told [him] to rinse

[his mouth] with salt.” See id. ¶¶ 13-24. Williams concludes

that he “was bleeding and in pain the entire night,” implying

that he received medical attention the next day. Id. ¶ 24.

Relevantly, Williams claims that the Correctional Defendants in

their individual capacities were deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical need, thereby depriving him of his Eighth

Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. ¶¶

26-27, 29.

The magistrate judge, however, did not recommend only

that qualified immunity bars Williams’ § 1983 claim. He also

found that “Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a plausible

Eighth Amendment violation against any of the Correctional

Defendants” in their individual capacities. PF&R 9; see also

id. at 7. Indeed, as the magistrate judge noted, Williams’

alleged injuries -- cut gums causing bleeding and pain -- are

insufficient to state an objectively serious medical need within

the purview of the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Murphy v. Corr.

Ctr. of Nw. Ohio, No. 3:21 CV 682, 2021 WL 3617497, at *1-2

(N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2021); Jacques v. Lopez, No. 1:16-cv-01289,

2019 WL 3546472, at *12 (E.D. Ca. Aug. 5, 2019) (Boone, M.J.);

Betts v. Rodriquez, 15-CV-3836, 2017 WL 2124443, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.

May 15, 2017); Chamberlain v. Suggs, No. 5:14-CT-3173-H, 2015 WL

5607788, at *5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2015); Noel v. Hewett, No.

513-007, 2013 WL 3289028, at *4 (S.D. Ga. June 28, 2013)

(adopting magistrate judge’s PF&R).

Even if Williams could establish that his alleged

injuries were sufficiently serious and that there is a

constitutional right to immediate medical attention for cut and

bleeding gums, the court is unaware of any authority suggesting

that such right is clearly established to defeat qualified

immunity. See generally Hill v. Crum, 727 F.3d 312, 321-22 (4th

Cir. 2013) (explaining the doctrine of qualified immunity).

Williams’ objection is thus without merit. The court otherwise

seeing no error in the PF&R, the magistrate judge’s

recommendations are correct.

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED

that:

1. The PF&R be, and hereby is, adopted and incorporated

herein;

2. The Correctional Defendants’ motion to dismiss be, and

hereby is, granted;

3. Bob Barker Co.’s motion to dismiss be, and hereby is,

granted in part and denied in part;

4.The claims against the Correctional Defendants in their

official and individual capacities be, and hereby are,

dismissed;

§ 1983 claim against Bob Barker Co. be, and hereby is,

dismissed; and

6. This action remain referred to the magistrate judge for

additional proceedings concerning Williams’ state law

claims against Bob Barker Co.

The Clerk is requested to transmit copies of this

memorandum opinion and order to all counsel of record and to any

unrepresented parties.

ENTER: July 8, 2022

- Bb,

Jo . Copenhaver, Jr.

Senior United States District Judge