Monroe v. Riverside Regional Jail et al, No. 1:2021cv00524 - Document 53 (E.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION in re Dkt. Nos. 19, 30, 32, 38-42, and 50. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 2/11/2022. (lber c/s)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Monroe v. Riverside Regional Jail et al Doc. 53 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 200 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Orlando O. Monroe, Plaintiff, I:21cv524(TSE/TCB) V. Riverside Regional Jail,^ al„ Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Orlando O. Monroe("Monroe" or "Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his constitutional rights were violated while detained at the Riverside Regional Jail("RRJ")on December 29, 2020, by RRJ; Larry Leabough, RRJ's Superintendent; Lt. Herman Massenburg; and Maj. Charles Armstrong.[Dkt. No. 1]. The Court screened the complaint on June 23,2021, and found that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and directed Monroe to file an amended complaint.[Dkt. No. 11]. Monroe filed an amended complaint on July 7, 2021, which named three defendants: Leabough, Massenburg, and Armstrong.[Dkt. No. 15]. The Court screened the amended complaint on July 9, 2021 and dismissed defendant Leabough without prejudice, and directed that defendants Massenburg and Armstrong be served.[Dkt. No. 17].' The amended complaint alleges that on December 29, 2020, at approximately 4:28 p.m., Monroe, an inmate at the RRJ, was sprayed with oleoresin capsicum spray ("OC") by Massenburg. Sgt. Taylor helped Monroe wash his eyes out at a sink, and Armstrong took over assisting Monroe at the sink. Armstrong attempted to place Monroe in handcuffs, Monroe 'The Court dismissed RRJ without prejudice as well because Monroe had not named RRJ as a defendant in the amended complaint.[Dkt. No. 17 at 1]. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 20 PageID# 201 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 20 PageID# 202 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 20 PageID# 203 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 20 PageID# 204 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 20 PageID# 205 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 206 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 20 PageID# 207 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 20 PageID# 208 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 10 of 20 PageID# 209 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 20 PageID# 210 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 12 of 20 PageID# 211 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 13 of 20 PageID# 212 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 14 of 20 PageID# 213 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 15 of 20 PageID# 214 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 16 of 20 PageID# 215 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 17 of 20 PageID# 216 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 18 of 20 PageID# 217 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 19 of 20 PageID# 218 Case 1:21-cv-00524-TSE-TCB Document 53 Filed 02/11/22 Page 20 of 20 PageID# 219
]]>
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.
