United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
RYAN K. BLANKENSHIP, Plaintiff,
SWVRJA DUFFIELD VA, Defendant.
K. Blankenship, Pro Se Plaintiff.
P. Jones United States District Judge.
Blankenship, a Virginia jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed
this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he has
been denied a follow up eye exam at the Southwestern Virginia
Regional Jail (“SWVRJ”) in Duffield, Virginia.
Upon review of the record, I find that the action must be
summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim.
sues the SWVRJA (“the jail authority”) alleging
I have failing vision in my left eye. I saw medical here at
the jail [in October 2016], where I was given an eye exam.
The doctor explained he couldn't help me at this
He stated they don[']t provide health care for vision[.]
I failed a grievance and their reply was they had an on site
provider that would see me as a follow up.
2, ECF No. 1. He says that at the time he filed this action
on January 30, 2017, he had not received additional eye care
at the jail. As relief in this action, Blankenship seeks a
transfer to “a DOC [Virginia Department of Corrections]
facility that can actually pro[v]ide proper eyecare.”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), the court must dismiss any
§ 1983 action “with respect to prison conditions .
. . if the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous,
malicious, [or] fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.” A complaint must be dismissed if it does
not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Giarratano
v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir.
1983 permits an aggrieved party to file a civil action
against a person for actions taken under color of state law
that violated his constitutional rights. See Cooper v.
Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). To prove
that a governmental entity, such as a local jail authority,
is liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations
committed by its employees, the plaintiff must show that the
entity's policy was “the moving force of the
constitutional violation.” Polk Cty. v.
Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981). “Local governing
bodies . . . can be sued directly under §1983 for
monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where . . . the
action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or
executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or
decision officially adopted and promulgated by that
body's officers.” Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Blankenship states no
facts linking the alleged denial of follow up eye care where
he is presently confined to a specific policy or decision
“officially adopted” by the governing body of the
jail authority. Therefore, his Complaint fails to state an
actionable claim against this entity, the only defendant that
he has named. Therefore, I must summarily dismiss this action
without prejudice under § 1915A(b)(1).
separate Final Order will be entered herewith.
 I have omitted internal quotation
marks, alterations, and citations here and throughout this
opinion, unless otherwise noted.
 In any event, Blankenship has not
stated facts suggesting any actionable constitutional claim
against anyone at the jail, consistent with his current
allegations. “A prison official's deliberate
indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment.” Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
178 (4th Cir. 2014). An inmate alleging a deliberate
indifference claim must establish that his medical condition
was objectively serious-that is, “one that has been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that
is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize
the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Iko v.
Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008). The inmate
must also show that the official subjectively knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate's health or
safety. Jackson, 775 F.3d at 178. The deliberate