Primes v. Lasiter et al, No. 1:2019cv00148 - Document 19 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting Officer Lassiter's 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment;. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 12/12/2019. (C/M 12/13/2019 spar)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Aaron A. Primes Plaintiff, I:19cvl48(AJT/IDD) Officer Richard A. Lassiter, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Aaron Primes, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro has brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Richard Lassiter, an officer at Hampton Roads Regional Jail, unconstitutionally applied excessive force.' [Dkt. No. 1]. Specifically, Primes alleges that Officer Lassiter deliberately shut a cell door on his head and afterwards, laughed and refused to send him for a medical evaluation. [Id]. Lassiter has moved for summary judgment and provided Primes with the notice required by Local Rule 7(K) and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975). [Dkt. No. 13]. Primes has submitted no opposing materials. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Lassiter's motion. The Court will grant a motion for summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "[T]he relevant inquiry is 'whether the evidence presents a sufficient 'In the complaint Primes does not assert whether he is a convicted prisoner proceeding under the Eighth Amendment or a pretrial detainee asserting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Officer Lassiter's summary judgment motion analyzes Primes's claim under the Eighth Amendment. Records from the Criminal Division of the Hampton Circuit Court of Virginia show that on April 27, 2018—two months before the incident at issue in this lawsuit—the court revoked his probation and sentenced him to time in the Virginia penitentiary. See Commonwealth v. Primes. No. CR08D00145-00. Accordingly, Primes's claims are properly understood as arising under the Eighth Amendment. See Kingslev v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473-75 (2015). Primes v. Lasiter et al Doc. 19
]]>
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.
