Case Information
*1 CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COCJFRD AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT 02T i ? 2219 FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA JULIA L , ElD!. ROANOK E DIW SION 8Y:
JEREM Y ED W A RD BA LL, C A SE N O . 7:19C V 00581
Plaintiff, M EM ORANDUM OPINION
V.
SOUTHW EST VA REGIONAL JAIL - By: H on. G len E . Conrad
A BIN G D O N M EDICA L DE PA R TM EN T,
Senior United States D istrict Judge D efendant.
Jeremy Edward Ball, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro . K , sled this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. j 1983, against the medical departrpent of the Southwest Virginia Regional Jail ( jail'') in Abingdon about his medical care. After review of the record, the court : '
concludes that this civil action is appropriately dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim .
Ball states that for some time, he has been tnking prescribed medications intended to help him wind down and avoid severe mood swings. During a previous incarceration at the jail, ofscials allowed him to continue taking these m edications. Now, Ball alleges, he is being refused the medications, although the jail is in possession of his medical records. He sues the jail's medical department, seeking as relief proper medical care and compensation.
The court is required to dismiss any action or claim sled by a prisoner against a governm ental entity or offcer if the cotu't determines that the action or claim is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted. 28 U.S.C. j 1915A(b)(1). Sedion 1983 pennits an aggrieved party to fsle a civil adion against a person for adions taken under color of state 1aw that violated his constitutional rights. Cooper v. Sheehan, 735 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir. 2013).
Neither the jail nor its medical department, as a group of individuals, qualises as a ççperson'' subject to being sued under j 1983. See, e.c., Vinnedae v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (snding that under j 1983, ççliability will only lie where it is affirmatively shown that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiftl's) rights'') (emphasis added). Thus, the only defendant Ball has identified cannot be sued under j 1983. For that reason, the court will summmily dismiss this case without prejudice under j 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. An appropriate order will enter this day. Such a dism issal leaves Ball free to refle his claim in a new and separate civil action if he can correct the desciencies described in this opiniom l The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m em orandum opinion and accom panying order to plaintiff. -1 % day of o ctober
ENTER: This l , 2019.
Senior United States District Judge 1 In any event, Ball's submissions do not indicate that he has any constitutional claim againstjail oftkials.
Only deliberate lndifference to an inmate's serious medical needs constimtes cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment. Jackson v. Liahtsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014). The deliberate indifference standard is not met by mere disagreement concerning dçslqquestions of medical judgment,''' Germain v. Shearin, 53 1 F. App'x 392, 395 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 3 1 8, 3 19 (4th Cir. 1975:, or by mere negligence in diagnosis or treatment. See Webb v. Hamidullah, 28 1 F. App'x 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2008) ($EPut simply, neglijent medical diagnoses or treatment, without more, do not constimte deliberate indifference.''). Ball wants the medlcations that other doctors have prescribed for him in the past and the jail's medical staff has apparently decided that different treatment is appropriate for his current condition. Such disap eements over the appropriate course of treatment are not sufficient support for an Eighth Amendment claim under j 1983.
2