United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge.
Wayne Tilley, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed
a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against three defendants: Patrick County Jail, Patrick County
Sheriffs Office, and Sherriff Dan Smith.
alleges that the defendants (1) administered the wrong
medication and left him unattended for three hours on May 19,
2017; and (2) he was not afforded a proper kosher diet.
Defendants filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Plaintiff
responded, and Defendants replied to the response, making
this matter ripe for disposition. After reviewing the record,
I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Standards of Review
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Defendants argue that the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
complaint need only contain "a short, plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). When evaluating a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a
court must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations. See
Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co., 708 F.3d 527,
539 (4th Cir. 2013); see also Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). "While a complaint attacked by a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed
factual allegations, a plaintiffs obligation to provide the
grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than
labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Stated
differently, to survive a motion to dismiss, "a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
need not "accept the legal conclusions drawn from the
facts" or "accept as true unwarranted inferences,
unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." E. Shore
Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d
175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). "Factual allegations must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, with all
allegations in the complaint taken as true and all reasonable
inferences drawn in the plaintiffs favor, Chao v.
Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir.
2005). Rule 12(b)(6) does "not require heightened fact
pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face."
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Making the plausibility
determination is "a context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense." Iqbal 556 U.S. at 679.
Pro Se Pleadings
plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, thus, entitled to a
liberal construction of the pleading. See, e.g.,
Erickson, 551 U.S. at 90-95. However,
"principles requiring generous construction of
pro se complaints are not. .. without limits."
Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278
(4th Cir. 1985). The Fourth Circuit has explained that
"though pro se litigants cannot, of course, be expected
to frame legal issues with the clarity and precision ideally
evident in the work of those trained in law, neither can
district courts be required to conjure up and decide issues
never fairly presented to them." Id. at 1276;
see Kalderon v. Finkelstein, No. 08 Civ 9440, 2010
WL 3359473, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010)
("Plaintiffs complaint belongs to the
everything-but-the-kitchen sink school of thought."
"The complaint is extremely difficult to follow because
of its extreme length and purported factual detail. The
factual allegations are often repetitive, inconsistent, and
contradicted by documents referenced in the
42 U.S.C. § 1983
"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). Notably, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege a
defendant's personal act or omission leading to a
deprivation of a federal right. See Fisher v. Wash.
Metro. Area Transit Author., 690 F.2d 1133, 1142-43 (4th
Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Cty. of
Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44(1991). Negligent
deprivations are not actionable under § 1983. See,
e.g., Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330
(1986); Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73, 77 (4th Cir.
1995). Defendants argue that the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).