United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
JAMES C. TURK, Senior District Judge.
Tony Wayne Covey, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming as defendants the Wallens Ridge State Prison ("WRSP") Psychiatric Dept. and Dr. R. Krishnappa, the WRSP Psychiatrist. This matter is before the court for screening, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. After reviewing Plaintiff's submissions, the court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff alleges that "Dr. Krishnappa... violated [his] mental and physical health rights which caused mental and physical harm to [him]. [Dr. Krishnappa] failed to study [Plaintiff's] medical file before treating [his] mental health. Dr.  Krisluiappa['s] negligence led him to prescribe medications for [Plaintiff] that were detrimental and harmful to [Plaintiff's] health and well being." Compl. 2.
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege "the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins , 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The WRSP's psychiatric department is not an appropriate defendant. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989) (stating neither states nor governmental entities that are considered arms of the state constitute "persons" under § 1983); McCoy v. Chesapeake Corr. Ctr. , 788 F.Supp. 890 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1992) (reasoning jails are not appropriate defendants to a § 1983 action). Plaintiff also fails to describe Dr. Krishnappa's deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in order to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for the unconstitutional denial of medical assistance. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Plaintiff cannot rely on mere labels and conclusions to describe an Eighth Amendment claim. See Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555 ("[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds' of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do"). Furthermore, acts of negligence do not constitute a ...