Brooks v. Liptrot et al, No. 1:2012cv01405 - Document 56 (E.D. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 8/21/2013. (rban, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Curtis Ray Brooks, Plaintiff, ) ) l:12cv!405(LMB/JFA) v. Lieutenant Liptrot, et ah, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Curtis Ray Brooks,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, allegingthat Lieutenant A. Liptrot violatedhis Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process by placinghim in a segregated housing unit ("SHU") and that Mr. Roth Nichols was deliberately indifferent to plaintiffs serious medical needs while plaintiff was housed in the SHU. For relief, Brooks seeks $500,000 in damages, transfer to either the Buckingham, Greensville, or Nottoway Correction Centers, a cease and desist order against all facilities using evidence based practice programs and expungement of any and all institutional infractions from his record. Each defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and informed plaintiff that he had twenty-one (21) days to respond pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975). Plaintiff has responded; accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition. For the below-stated reasons, summary judgment will be granted to each defendant, and plaintiffs other pending motions will be denied as moot. I. Background The following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff has been confined at Sussex II State Prison since September 18,2002 and was housed in general population in Housing Unit 4 through
]]>
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.
