William Bradshaw v. Mr. Harden, No. 10-7052 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7052 WILLIAM LEE BRADSHAW, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MR. HARDEN, Lt.; MR. BURKE, Sgt., Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00225-gec-mfu) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Bradshaw, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Lee Bradshaw appeals the district court s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure See 28 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006). The officials at complaint Augusta alleged that Correctional defendants, Center, supervisory violated Bradshaw s rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from assault by other inmates. According to the complaint, a prison official issued Bradshaw cleaning supplies, including a longhandled mop and a long-handled broom, in violation of written prison policy authorizing only inmates designated as housemen to possess such supplies without supervision. Bradshaw alleged that the cleaning supplies were subsequently used by two inmates to assault him. The individual officer alleged to have violated the cleaning-supplies policy was not named in Bradshaw s complaint. Instead, those named as defendants have supervisory roles at the prison and Bradshaw alleges that they violated his rights by failing to enforce the cleaning-supplies policy. However, as noted by the district court, Bradshaw does not allege any facts that would have put defendants on notice that the policy was being violated. supervisors As such, demonstrated Bradshaw deliberate 2 cannot show indifference to, that or the tacit authorization Accordingly, of, Bradshaw s the the conduct district complaint court insofar supervisory liability. as of their did not it relied subordinates. err in on a dismissing theory of See Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372- 73 (4th Cir. 1984). Bradshaw rights by released failing back however, also into there deliberately Bradshaw. to alleged protect the was that him general no indifferent defendants when prison indication to a his violated assailants population. that potential were Again, defendants risk his of were harm to See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-37 (1994). Indeed, Bradshaw failed to indicate that such a risk existed. Notably, after Bradshaw was treated for the injuries resulting from the assault, but before he was released to the general population, he signed a form indicating that he did not fear for his safety in the general population. Also, there was no evidence indicating that the two inmates who assaulted Bradshaw threatened or harmed him in any way after their return to the general prison population. We are disinclined to hold that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk of which they were unaware. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court to dismiss Bradshaw s complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
