Gregg v. Keen Mountain Correctional Center et al, No. 7:2014cv00234 - Document 8 (W.D. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 6/23/2014. (tvt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION VINCENT GREGG, Plaintiff, v. KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:14cv00234 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge Plaintiff Vincent Gregg, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a pleading which the court construes as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Gregg alleges that his personal property was lost during his transfer and names only Keen Mountain Correctional Center and River North Correctional Center as defendants to this action. To state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that he has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (emphasis added). As neither Keen Mountain Correctional Center nor River North Correctional Center is a person subject to suit under § 1983, the court finds that Gregg cannot maintain his action against the defendant correctional centers. See McCoy v. Chesapeake Correctional Center, 788 F. Supp. 890 (E.D. Va. 1992). Accordingly, the court will dismiss Gregg s complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Entered: June 23, 2014 /s/ Michael F. Urbanski Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge 1 Although Gregg mentions the Federal Tort Claims Act in his pleading, he names no federal defendants to the action. Accordingly, the court finds his claims are more properly raised in a civil rights action pursuant to § 1983.

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.