Ladarius Cameron v. Mr. Bonney, No. 12-7836 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7836 LADARIUS M. CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MR. BONNEY, Deputy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00516-MSD-LRL) Submitted: April 19, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ladarius M. Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM Ladarius Cameron, a Virginia state prisoner, appeals the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006). confrontation with prison Cameron s complaint detailed a officials specific constitutional violations. but failed to articulate We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further consideration. We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1), applying the same standards as those for reviewing a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). De Lonta v. Angelone, 708 F.3d 520, 524 (4th Cir. 2013). The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). As a result, to survive such a motion, a complaint s [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and have enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. (2007). Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 In assessing the complaint s plausibility, we accept 2 as true all the factual allegations contained therein. De Lonta, 708 F.3d at 524. To extent that arising violations the from being Cameron forced claimed to talk constitutional to an unwanted visitor, verbal abuse from prison officials, and the denial of access to a grievance form, the district court properly denied relief for failure to state a claim. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997) (stating that mere verbal abuse by a prison guard does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983 ), abrogated on other grounds by Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (2010); Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) ( [T]he Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to any such procedure. ). We affirm this portion of the judgment. On appeal, Cameron notes his complaint alleged, but the district court failed to address, that in escorting Cameron to his cell block, prison officials pushed him against a wall, slammed his face to the floor, and used a knee to prevent him from breathing. his resulting Moreover, Cameron seeks money damages to cover medical bill. Affording Cameron s contentions liberal construction, see Gordon v. Leake, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), Cameron asserted a plausible claim of excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 3 (4th Cir. See Williams 1996) (detailing subjective and objective components to excessive force claims). Because the district court s opinion did not address this claim, we conclude that dismissal of Cameron s complaint under § 1915A was premature and that Cameron should have been afforded opportunity to particularize his excessive force claim. an Thus, we vacate and remand for the district court to address this issue. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment in part, vacate the district court s judgment with respect to Cameron s excessive proceedings. force claim, and remand for further We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; AND REMANDED By this disposition, we do not suggest that Cameron s claim is meritorious. Rather, on this record, we conclude only that dismissal pursuant to § 1915A was inappropriate at this stage of the proceedings. 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.
