Bellamy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center et al, No. 3:2007cv00564 - Document 10 (E.D. Va. 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James R. Spencer on 2/8/08. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bellamy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center et al Doc. 10 Case 3:07-cv-00564-JRS Document 10 Filed 02/11/2008 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Page 1 of 3 I a % , E t Richmond Division RICHMOND. »/(* I JAMES EDWARD BELLAMY, JR., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:07CVS64 CHESAPEAKE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et at, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a former Virginia inmate, brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) will be GRANTED. The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e}(2). Jurisdiction is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I343(a)(3). I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Magistrate Judge made the following findings and recommendations: The Court must dismiss any action in which the plaintiff Is proceeding in forma pauperis if the Court determines the action (1) "is frivolous" or (2) "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The first Standard includes claims based upon '"an indisputably mcritless legal theory,1" or claims where the '"factual contentions are clearly baseless.1" Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427 (F..D. Va. 1992) [quoting Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 3 19, 327 (1989)). The second standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Parly oj'N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943. 952 (4th Cir. 1992) {citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Maikari. 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:07-cv-00564-JRS Document 10 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 2 of 3 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell All. Corp. v. Twombfy, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,47 (1957)). Courts long have cited the "rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [a] claim which would entitle him [or her] to relief." Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46. In Bell Atlantic Corp., the Supreme Court noted that the complaint need not assert "detailed factual allegations," but must contain "more than labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65 (citations omitted). Thus, the "[fjactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," id. at 1965 (citation omitted), to one that is "plausible on its face," id. at 1974, rather than "conceivable." Id. Therefore, in order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) {citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp., 309 F.3d 193,213 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270,281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241,243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998). The only defendants Plaintiff has named are the Richmond City Jail and the Chesapeake Correctional Center. Neither of these institutions qualifies as a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Brooks v. Pembroke City Jail, 722 F. Supp. 1294, 1301 (E.D.N.C. 1989) (citing cases). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the action be DISMISSED. (Jan. 11,2008 Report and Recommendation.) The Court advised Plaintiff that he could file objections or an amended complaint within ten (10) days of the date of entry thereof. Plaintiff did not file objections. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW "The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has Case 3:07-cv-00564-JRS Document 10 Filed 02/11/2008 Page 3 of 3 no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court." Estrada v. Witkowski, 816 F. Supp. 408,410 (D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)). This Court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). "The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute." Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In the absence of a specific written objection, this Court may adopt a magistrate judge's recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005), cert, denied, 546 U.S. 1091 (2006). III. CONCLUSION There being no objections and upon review of the record and the Report and Recommendation, the Report and Recommendation will be ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED, and the action will be DISMISSED. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to note the disposition of the action for purposes 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: 3~-l-ol Richmond, Virginia 1st James R. Spencer Chief United States District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
