Halter v. Hutcheson et al, No. 7:2020cv00304 - Document 9 (W.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 8/17/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Halter v. Hutcheson et al Case 7:20-cv-00304-JLK-RSB Document 9 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 2 Pageid#: 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION DANIEL N. HALTER, Plaintiff, v. BRYAN F. HUTCHESON, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Doc. 9 AUG 17 2020 Civil Action No. 7:20cv00304 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Hon. Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge Plaintiff Daniel N. Halter, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bryan Hutcheston, Lauren J, and John Doe. Halter alleges he was denied adequate dental treatment but does not allege how any of the named defendants were involved in denying him dental treatment. By order entered July 13, 2020, the court conditionally filed Halter’s complaint, advised him that the complaint failed to state a federal claim against because it failed to allege any facts against or conduct committed by a defendant, and gave Halter the opportunity to file an amended complaint. [See ECF No. 8.] Halter did not file an amended complaint. To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988). To state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that an official was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976); Conner v. Donnelly, 42 F.3d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1994); Staples v. Va. Dep’t of Corr., 904 F. Supp. 487, 492 (E.D. Va. 1995). Despite being given the Dockets.Justia.com Case 7:20-cv-00304-JLK-RSB Document 9 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 2 Pageid#: 32 opportunity to amend his complaint, Halter has failed to allege any facts against or conduct committed by the named defendants and, thus, he has not alleged sufficient facts to show that any of the named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical need. Accordingly, Halter’s complaint fails to state a claim against the named defendants and, thus, I will dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2020. SENIOR 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.
