Nowell v. Kumer et al, No. 7:2015cv00461 - Document 9 (W.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 11/17/2015. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nowell v. Kumer et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION ROBERT NOWELL, JR., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN KUMER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:15cv00461 By: Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert Nowell, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Superintendant Martin Kumer, Major Rowland, Dr. Juanita Morris, and Nurse Workman, all staff at the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. Having reviewed the complaint, the court finds that Nowell’s allegations are far too vague to state a cognizable federal claim against any defendant. Nowell alleges that he “completed a sick call describing a pre-existing condition,” but because he received no response “in an appropriate time frame,” he requested a grievance form. He also alleges that he informed the medical department that the “Urology Dept. U.V.A[.] has records.” Finally, Nowell alleges that he received a response from Dr. Morris and Nurse Workman stating that he did not have a pre-existing condition, but “no tests were performed to confirm or deny these findings.” As relief, Nowell asks the court to end his mental and physical suffering. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating that plaintiff has been deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitution or laws of the United States and that this deprivation resulted from conduct by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A plaintiff must assert factual allegations that raise a right Dockets.Justia.com to relief that is “plausible on its face,” not one that is speculative or merely “conceivable.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court must dismiss an action or claim filed by a prisoner against an employee of a governmental entity if the action or claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court finds that Nowell’s allegations in his complaint are far too vague to state a cognizable federal claim against any defendant, and, therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1). Entered: November 17, 2015. Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge
]]>
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.
