United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
ANTHONY D. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff,
DR. JOHN SHERRILL, Defendant.
K. MOON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Dean Campbell, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that a jail doctor provided him with inadequate
medical care for back pain. After review of the record, I
conclude that defendants' motion to dismiss must be
Facts as Alleged
15, 2016, while Campbell was incarcerated at the Bristol City
Jail (“the jail”), he allegedly “was
assaulted by officer Galvez” and “end[ed] up with
back injury.” Comp. 2, ECF No. 1. A nurse
“prescribed Tylenol or Ibuprofen for a few days.”
Pl.'s Resp. 2, ECF No. 30. “[I]t took one month for
the jail doctor to agree to see” Campbell. Comp. at 2.
Campbell was dissatisfied with the doctor's findings and
18, 2016, Campbell wrote an inmate grievance, stating:
I have again requested that my arm and back be look[ed] at
there has been no improvement in my arm and my back has
gotten worse. My request[s] have been ignored and I am
I would like to have a second opinion and X-rays, and/or MRI.
These problems weren't with me until the incident
happened here, so I would like to have it fixed.
Add'l Evid. 1, ECF No. 4. A sergeant responded:
“You hav[e]n't been ignored, the Jail Physician has
examined your issues and he has spoken with you about these
issues. I will again ask [him] if he would like to see you
appealed this response, complaining of pain in his arm and
worsening pain in his back and leg, and asking again for a
second opinion, X-rays and an MRI. In August 2016, officers
responded that Dr. Sherrill, from his examination of
Campbell, believed his “injuries [were] associated to
long term degeneration” and did not “warrant
further diagnosis or treatment” at that time.
Id. at 2. Campbell appealed, repeating his
complaints and stating his belief that the doctor's
findings were “wrong.” Id. The sheriff
responded to Campbell's final appeal: “Mr.
Campbell, I have reviewed your grievance and your medical
treatment regarding your complaints. I am aware that Dr.
Sherrill has advised you that your condition does not warrant
further diagnosis or treatment at this time. We are not in a
position to override the jail doctor's
advice/treatment.” Id. at 3.
August 22, 2016, Campbell filed a § 1983 lawsuit against
the sheriff's office. See Campbell v. Bristol
Virginia Sheriff's Office, No. 7:16CV00388 (W. D.
Va. Nov. 2016) (dismissed without prejudice). At some point,
Dr. Sherrill ordered an MRI of the lumbar spine that Campbell
underwent on September 21, 2016. The report of the MRI
findings indicated “degenerative endplate
changes” and “intervertebral osteochondrosis L4-5
and L5-S1 with midline disc extrusions at both levels causing
mild central canal stenosis.” Pl.'s Resp. Ex. A, ECF
present case, Campbell sues the jail doctor, Dr. John D.
Sherrill,  seeking monetary damages. Dr. Sherrill has
filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Campbell has responded, making
this matter ripe for consideration. As relief, he seeks
compensation for pain and suffering.
Standard of Review
ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept as true all
of the factual allegations contained in the complaint and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff.” Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep't,
Inc. v. Montgomery Cty., Md., 684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th
Cir. 2012); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). “[L]egal conclusions, elements of a
cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement fail to constitute well-pled facts”
and thus, need not be taken as true. Nemet Chevrolet,
Ltd. V. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255
(4th Cir. 2009). “[T]he 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.