Porfiro Barnes v. S. K. Young, No. 13-7774 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7774 PORFIRO R. BARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN S. K. YOUNG; A. W. MEEK, Asst Warden; E. J. EATON, Unit Manager/Bldg A-1; JERALD HOPKINS, Facility Doctor; S. YATES, RNCB Head Nurse; A. OSBORNE, Pill Nurse; DIRECTOR FRED SCHILLING, Health Services Director-VA DOC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00067-NKM-RSB) Submitted: March 31, 2014 Decided: April 10, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Porfiro R. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Mary Foil Russell, HALE, LYLE & RUSSELL, PC, Bristol, Tennessee, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Porfiro R. Barnes appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment to Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and his claims that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2006), Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2012). and the We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error with regard to Barnes § 1983 and Rehabilitation Act claims. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Young, No. 7:12-cv-00067-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2013). With regard to Barnes ADA claims, we note that Title II of the ADA . . . [does not] provide[] for individual capacity suits against state 280 officials. F.3d 98, 107 Garcia Cir. S.U.N.Y. 2001) Health Sciences Ctr., cases). As a result, such a suit may only be brought against a defendant in an official capacity. (2d v. (collecting [A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official s office. As such, itself. (1989) it is no different from a suit against the State Will v. Mich. Dep t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (internal citation omitted). Under the Eleventh Amendment, States are immunized from suits brought in federal court, absent a waiver from 2 the State or a clear, constitutionally permissible Congressional exercise of its power under the Fourteenth Amendment. an exception ADA violations at issue also violate the Fourteenth Amendment. See States v. this prohibition, Georgia, 546 however, The ADA creates the United to See id. at 66. U.S. 151, where 153, 159 (2006). Because we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment on Barnes § 1983 claims, we conclude that Barnes ADA claims are barred. We deny Barnes motion to appoint counsel and 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 3
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.
