The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Wheeling
MICHAEL DANIEL BOWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 5:24-CV-229
Judge Bailey
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES/SERVICES,
NURSE PRACTITIONER LACEY MORGAN,
JAMES GRAY, NORTHERN REGIONAL
JAIL, and WVA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Background
On December 13, 2024, the plaintiff, a state prisoner housed at Northern Regional
Jail in Moundsville, West Virginia, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
matter is assigned to the Honorable John Preston Bailey, United States District Judge,
and it is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for submission of
proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the
Complaint be dismissed.
II. The Complaint
On December 13, 2024, plaintiff filed this Complaint raising a claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. On December 20, 2024, plaintiff filed a Motion for an Emergency
Injunction. [Doc. 7]. This Court entered an Order directing defendants to respond to the
Motion. On January 27, 2025, Judge Bailey entered an Order denying the preliminary
injunction. In that Order, the Court summarized the plaintiff’s Complaint:
In his underlying Complaint, plaintiff raises a single claim that
defendants are denying plaintiff medical treatment; he alleges he entered
Northern Regional Jail in November of 2021 while suffering from Opioid Use
Disorder. [Doc. 1 at 11]. He alleges that despite being diagnosed with
moderate/severe opioid use disorder on December 27, 2022, defendants
have refused to provide him treatment. [Id.]. He alleges that defendant
Nurse Lacey interviewed him for Medication-Assisted Treatment (“MAT”)
but denied him such treatment. [Id.]. He further states that although he
tested positive on a drug screen for Buprenorphine/Suboxone, he had self-
reported his use because he had been attempting to treat his disorder with
contraband Suboxone. [Id. at 12]. He states that Nurse Lacey “said she
wasn’t who requested the drug screen so she doesn’t care. That she will
STILL provide no treatment for petitioner’s disease.” [Id.]. Petitioner alleges
that the denial of his treatment may be due to discrimination. [Id. at 13].
Plaintiff contends that prison staff have been aware of his addiction
from the first day he entered the facility. [Id. at 15]. He states that he also
had a very brief interview on September 17, 2024, and that Nurse Lacey
told plaintiff she would pass his information along to an outside Suboxone
doctor and that plaintiff would receive treatment, but that this “was a lie just
to pacify me and get me out of medical.” [Id. at 16]. Then, on November
15, 2024, he explained his problem to Nurse Erica and was given a
urinalysis which tested positive for Buprenorphine/Suboxone, leading
plaintiff to believe he would finally receive treatment; however, he alleges
that Nurse Lacey refused to order treatment out of discrimination against
plaintiff because he is in prison for a sex offense. [Id.].
For relief, plaintiff seeks to be treated in the MAT program and for
monetary compensation of $100,000 from each defendant.
[Doc. 27 at 2–3].
III. Standard of Review
Because the plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or
employee, the Court must review the complaint to determine whether it is frivolous or
malicious. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), a court is required to perform a judicial
review of certain suits brought by prisoners and must dismiss a case at any time if the
court determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in fact. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). However, the court must read pro se allegations
in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A complaint which
fails to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous. See
Neitzke at 328. Frivolity dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are
“indisputably meritless,”1 or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly
baseless.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). This includes claims in which
the plaintiff has little or no chance of success. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976).
IV. Discussion
Based on a preliminary review of the Complaint, the undersigned finds that the
Complaint should be dismissed. First, an initial review shows that the claims made
against defendants Northern Regional Jail and the West Virginia Division of Corrections
and Rehabilitation should be dismissed because they are not proper defendants in a
§ 1983 claim. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action against any “person who” acts
under color of law. (emphasis added). Actions authorized under § 1983 are intended to
“deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their
federally guaranteed rights.” Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992). Critically,
complaints in § 1983 actions must allege that some person has deprived him of a federal
right. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). The Eleventh Amendment bars such
1 Id. at 327.
suits against the State, and § 1983 does not provide an exception. “Congress, in passing
§ 1983, had no intention to disturb the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity[.]” Will v.
Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440
U.S. 332 (1979)). “[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are
‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will, 491 U.S. at 71. Plaintiff’s claims against Northern Regional
Jail and the West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation fail to name a valid
defendant for purposes of § 1983 and must be dismissed.
Second, the undersigned finds that this Court’s previous findings in ruling on the
preliminary injunction motion necessitate dismissal. Plaintiff’s sole claim is an Eighth
Amendment claim that defendants are acting in deliberate indifference to his need for
medical treatment for his Opioid Use Disorder (“OUD”). This Court’s January 27, 2025
Order already determined that plaintiff’s records showed only a disagreement between
plaintiff and defendants about his proper medical care and not a showing of deliberate
indifference:
The medical records submitted by plaintiff show that staff at the facility
interviewed plaintiff to evaluate him for the MAT program on July 1, 2024,
and determined he did not qualify. [Doc. 7-1 at 1]. Similarly, the medical
records submitted by defendants show that on June 25, 2024, Nurse Lacey
was going to inquire about MAT medications for plaintiff. [Doc. 20-2 at 4].
Thus, it appears defendants evaluated plaintiff’s condition and determined
admission to the MAT program was not warranted. This type of
disagreement between and inmate and medical providers about the proper
course of medication is generally not enough to establish deliberate
indifference. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014)
(deliberate indifference claim based on a diagnosis of arrhythmia rather
than a more serious condition and the resulting modification of prescriptions
was essentially “a ‘[d]isagreement[ ] between an inmate and a physician
over the inmate’s proper medical care,’ and we consistently have found
such disagreements to fall short of showing deliberate indifference.”).
[Doc. 27 at 7–8]. Similarly to the findings in that Order, the undersigned is cognizant of
plaintiff’s concern that defendants apparently offered plaintiff Naltrexone in response to
the filing of this lawsuit; however, the Court already found that “Nonetheless, even without
the offer of Naltrexone, the medical records appear to show that the defendants made a
medical decision not to place plaintiff in the MAT program. . ..” [Id. at 8–9]. As such, the
undersigned finds that this Court’s prior findings preclude a finding of deliberate
indifference to plaintiff’s medical needs, and the Complaint should be dismissed for failure
to state a claim.
V. Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Complaint
[Doc. 1] be DISMISSED with prejudice.
The plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of service of this Report and
Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written
objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objection is made, and the basis of such objection. A copy of such objections should
also be submitted to the United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten
(10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless
accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent with LR PL
P 12.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver
of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the
Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United
States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk of the Court is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Report and
Recommendation to the pro se plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his
last known address as reflected on the docket sheet.
DATED: February 11, 2025.
á ]tÅxá cA `tééÉÇx
/
JAMES P. MAZZONE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE