United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Anthony Adkins, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
about his incarceration at the Danville City Jail
("Jail"). The court previously granted a motion to
dismiss and terminated defendants, and presently before the
court are motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff and
the remaining defendant, Asia Hall. After reviewing the
record, the court grants Hall's motion for summary
judgment and denies Plaintiffs motions for summary judgment.
alleges the following facts in the verified complaint and
I arrived in this Jail from Popular Springs Psychiatric
Hospital with prescriptions [for] Prozac and Traz[o]done and
Ben[a]dryl on [November 20, 2014]. I never received my
medicine for my condition. I didQn't receive my medicine
period by Nurse Rob[ertson]. On [October 19, 2014, ] I seen
from mental health Asia Hall here at the Jail. She stated
she could try and get my medicine but she didn't at all.
I want an injunction so I can get proper medicine: my
Prozacf, ] Vistaril[, ] and Trazodone. I['ve] seen mental
health and Asia Hall and still can't get proper
medicine. She stated I couldn't until I get released.
(ECF No. 1 at 2, 4-5.) Plaintiff explains that he never
received a mental health exam upon his arrival at the Jail,
allegedly in violation of state policy, and that the
prescriptions were needed to treat a bipolar disorder.. As a
result of not receiving his medications, Plaintiff allegedly
twice experienced a substantial risk of pain and suicide.
Hall is an adult outpatient counselor employed with the
Danville/Pittsylvania County Community Services Board
("CSB"). As the CSB liaison to the Jail, she visits
inmates once a week and provides counseling services upon
request. Hall would advise an inmate to follow up with a
physician if that inmate told Hall of needing medication. If
the inmate had an open case with the CSB before being
incarcerated, Hall would explain that the inmate could
continue to see the CSB-associated doctor seen before being
incarcerated. In contrast, Hall would explain that an inmate
had to request services through the Jail's medical staff
if the inmate did not have an open case with the CSB before
being incarcerated. Hall is not a physician and cannot
met with Plaintiff during his incarceration at the Jail on
two occasions: once in December of 2014, and once in March of
2015 when he requested to be seen by mental health. Hall
alleges she never met with Plaintiff in either October or
November 2014, which is when Jail staff allegedly did not
give him medication.
Hall first met with Plaintiff in December 2014, Plaintiff
informed her that he arrived at the Jail from Poplar Springs
Hospital, he had suffered from anxiety, and he needed
medications in the past. Plaintiff asked Hall for medication,
but Hall advised Plaintiff that she could provide only
counseling services and not medications. Plaintiff emphasized
that he did not want counseling and wanted medication.
Consequently, Hall explained the CSB's policy for
treating inmates who had and who had not previously seen a
CSB-associated physician. Because Plaintiff said he had an
open case with the CSB before his incarceration, Hall
attempted to confirm this claim. However, she learned that
Plaintiff had not had an open case with the CSB, and
consequently, she told Plaintiff that he could not receive
medications from a CSB-associated doctor and needed to follow
up with the Jail's medical staff. Hall did not further
communicate with Plaintiff about any request for medication.
is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any
affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Williams v.
Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (recognizing
a party is entitled to summary judgment if the record as a
whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find in
favor of the non-movant). "Material facts" are
those facts necessary to establish the elements of a
party's cause of action. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of
material fact exists if, in viewing the record and all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most
favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable factfinder
could return a verdict for the non-movant. Id. The
moving party has the burden of showing - "that is,
pointing out to the district court - that there is an absence
of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case."
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
If the movant satisfies this burden, then the non-movant must
set forth specific, admissible facts that demonstrate the
existence of a genuine dispute of fact for trial.
Id. at 322-23. A court may not resolve disputed
facts, weigh the evidence, or make determinations of
credibility. Russell v. Microdyne Corp., 65 F.3d
1229, 1239 (4th Cir. 1995); Sosebee v. Murphy, 797
F.2d 179, 182 (4th Cir. 1986). Instead, a court accepts as
true the evidence of the non-moving ...