United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anthony J. Trenga, United States District Judge.
Lee Helms, a Virginia inmate acting pro se, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging in relevant part that he suffered deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs when he was not
provided with appropriate medication for his hepatitis C
infection. The matter is presently before the Court
on a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by
defendant Dr. Amonette, the Chief Physician for the Virginia
Department of Corrections ("VDOC"), to which Helms
has filed no response. For the reasons which follow,
defendant's Motion will be granted.
Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in the
lawsuit, plaintiff makes the following allegations regarding
Dr. Amonett [sic] does not know me by face or name only by my
#1026097 an[d] my liver enzymes count threw [sic] my Blood
lab work. He controlls [sic] who get liver treatment for
Dkt. No. 13, § IV. In an attachment to the amended
complaint, Helms adds:
[T]his is the only way Dr. Amonett [sic] knows of me threw
[sic] my lab work I never seen him.
I think if he knew my age 7-4-56 will be 62 he would treat
and cure my hepatitis C now.
Helms also supplies a form captioned Laboratory/Diagnostic
Test(s) Results dated May 1, 2018, which states:
Please be advised that your recent laboratory/diagnostic
test(s) have been received and reviewed by the facility
Medical Practitioner and the following has been recommended
for your continued care:
Labs/x-ray/procedure is within normal limits; provider is
aware. There is no referral to the Provider at this time. You
will be followed in your next chronic care clinic.
Id., unnumbered attachments 2-3. As relief, Helms
seeks the issuance of an order directing VDOC to treat his
liver condition with the drug Harvoni. Id. § V.
Amonette has moved to dismiss Helms' claim on the grounds
that the amended complaint fails to state a claim against him
either in his personal capacity or for supervisory liability.
He supplied Helms with the notice required by Roseboro v.
Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) and Local Rule 7K
[Dkt. No. 25], and Helms has filed no response. Accordingly,
this matter is ripe for disposition.