Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Boakye

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

September 19, 2016

DR. BOAKYE, Defendant.



         Clifton Eugene Johnson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.[1] In his Particularized Complaint ("Complaint;' ECF No. 17), Johnson contends that Defendant Dr. Boakye denied him adequate medical care during his incarceration in the Riverside Regional Jail ("RRJ"). The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Dr. Boakye. (ECF No. 27.) Despite the provision of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notice, Johnson has not responded. For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT Dr. Boakye's Motion to Dismiss.


         "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5 A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This principle applies only to factual allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[ ] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, " id. (citation omitted), stating a claim that is "plausible on its face, " id. at 570, rather than merely "conceivable." Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, therefore, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).


         In his Complaint, Johnson alleges that Dr. Boakye denied him adequate medical care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, [2] with respect to his diabetes. Johnson alleges:[3]

I got here in July of 2014. At the time I got here, Dr. Boakye was the primary Dr. When I went to chronic care on 12-19-14 it was already past the Dr. protocol as me being a chronic insulin dependent diabetic because I'm supposed to be seen every 90 days. When I saw Dr. Stairs he was confused. It was already 5 months which was 1 month past protocol. When I spoke to Dr. Stairs, [he] was confused because he pull my chart up on the computer and it was none of my blood sugar level readings in the system because the nurses was putting my readings on these personal papers and notebooks instead of logging it in the computer like [they were] supposed to so that Dr. Stairs can adjust my insulin for my next 90 days chronic care visit.
I got here in July of 2014. I seen Dr. Boakye in August of 2014. But after that I never went back until December 19th which was a month past due of my 90 days. Dr. Stairs had to restart me a whole new flow sheet in the computer because he had nothing to go by. I have my paperwork to show and prove the facts of this mistake made by him because [he] is supposed to oversee his staff to make sure that no mistake are made when it's a life and death situation going on. That's why it's called chronic care because he don't know what my blood sugar has been running, high or low. He did not know anything about my diabetes.
... Dr. Boakye did not follow protocol. I was not seen in 90 days as of procedure....
... Dr. Boakye was my Dr. when I got here. ... He was supposed to make sure his nurses staff was logging my blood sugar levels in the computer to be monitored instead of them putting it down on their own personal books and note pads. My diabetes cause serious health issues such as mood swings, loss of limbs such as arms, legs, or feet and swelling in my feet and hands and kidney failure and also blindness. I was deprived by Dr. Boakye because he did not make sure that protocol was followed.
As me being an insulin dependent diabetic, I been going through so much pain and suffering over 19 years [and] I should get the medical attention I need by medical staff as long as I'm incarcerated because I'm supposed to [have] 24 hour medical due to my health because it's a permanent health issue I have to deal with the rest of my life. It was his job as a Dr. physician to make sure I [am] seen every 90 days not because short of staff or anything else in that nature.

(Compl. 1-2.) Johnson fails to identify what relief he seeks.

         III. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.