United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
GLEN E. CONRAD SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Edward Craghead, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro
se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against the Amherst County Adult Detention
Center (“ACADC”), claiming various violations of
his constitutional rights. After review of the record, the
court concludes that this civil action must be summarily
alleges that on September 17, 2019, he went to the ACADC
medical unit, complaining of a headache and problems with his
leg. He underwent an x-ray of his leg and had his blood
pressure checked. Staff told him that he had moderate
hypertension and that “they would keep a check on
it.” Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. On September 27, 2019,
Craghead suffered another “very bad headache.”
Id. He called his wife and asked her to call ACADC
about getting him medical care. A few minutes later, an
officer took Craghead to the medical unit. His blood pressure
was “182/108 which was almost sever[e]
hypertension.” Id. He received medication and
was told to go back to the pod and relax[ ].”
Id. He also alleges, “Medical is giving out
med's to other people and not log[g]ing it down as well
as not checking up on inmate's as they should.”
Id. at 2.
second claim, Craghead alleges that some of his incoming mail
was received at ACADC on a Monday, but was not delivered to
him until Thursday. An officer told him that “the mail
people did not go thru the mail on Monday like they should
have.” Id. at 3. Another time, Craghead turned
in outgoing mail on Thursday evening, to be mailed out the
next morning, but it did not get to the post office until
Monday of the following week. He complains that “there
is no standard's about the mail because they make the
schedule” at ACADC. Id.
court is required to dismiss any action filed by a prisoner
against a governmental entity or officer if the court
determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1). Section 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. Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d
153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013). A complaint must be dismissed if it
does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
identifies only one defendant: ACADC. A local jail, however,
cannot qualify as a person subject to being sued under §
1983. See, e.g., McCoy v. Chesapeake
Corr. Ctr., 788 F.Supp. 890, 893-94 (E.D. Va. 1992).
Because Craghead's § 1983 claims cannot proceed
against the only defendant he has named, the court will
summarily dismiss the action without prejudice under §
1915A(b)(1). An appropriate order will enter this day.
Such a dismissal leaves Craghead free to refile Ms claims in
a new and separate civil action if he can correct the
deficiencies described in this opinion.
Clerk is directed to send copies of this memorandum opinion
and accompanying order to plaintiff.
 Moreover, Craghead's current
allegations do not state any actionable constitutional claim
against anyone at the jail. Only “[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) (citing
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). The
inmate must state facts showing that the defendant official
subjectively knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the
inmate's health or safety. Id. (citing
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)).
Craghead has not alleged that anyone at ACADC knew of and
ignored his high blood pressure. His mail delay allegations
are similarly insufficient to state any claim of a
constitutional dimension. See, e.g.,
Pearson v. Simms, 345 F.Supp.2d 515, 519 (D. Md.
2003), aff'd, 88 Fed.Appx. 639 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“[O]ccasional incidents of delay or non-delivery of
mail do not rise to a constitutional level.”).
The court also notes that
Craghead's present complaint joins two unrelated claims
in one lawsuit, a deficiency he must correct if he decides to
file another federal civil ...