Facts
- Buechel Lee Adams, a pretrial detainee at LMDC, underwent two emergency spinal surgeries on January 29, 2024, and July 1, 2024, following an accident [lines="19-24"].
- Adams submitted multiple Health Service Request (HSR) forms from July 8-13, and July 15-24, 2024, reporting escalating pain levels and lack of medical response [lines="25-28"].
- After filing a grievance on July 30, 2024, he was seen by medical staff on August 9, 2024, but alleged no action was taken regarding his conditions [lines="31-33"].
- Adams experienced worsening symptoms, including mobility issues and high pain levels, prompting concerns about potential paralysis [lines="36-38"].
- He alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment due to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages, along with injunctive relief [lines="42-45"].
Issues
- Whether LMDC, as a municipal department, is subject to suit under § 1983 [lines="89-90"].
- Whether Yes Care, Corp. can be held liable under § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations due to lack of policy or custom proving liability [lines="171-172"].
- Whether there is a constitutional right to an effective prison grievance procedure [lines="178-185"].
- Whether Adams' deliberate indifference claim is appropriately assessed under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment [lines="192-205"].
Holdings
- LMDC is not a “person” under § 1983 and thus cannot be sued, necessitating dismissal of the claim against it [lines="90-91"].
- Adams' claim against Yes Care, Corp. must be dismissed for failure to state a claim due to lack of policy or custom linking actions to his injuries [lines="172-173"].
- A § 1983 claim cannot be based on the inadequacy of the jail’s grievance procedure, as no inherent constitutional right exists for it [lines="184-185"].
- Since Adams is a pretrial detainee, his claim of deliberate indifference should be evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment, which necessitates specific allegations of individual defendant actions [lines="195-220"].
OPINION
Case Information
*2 Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Joseph Lind, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jonathan Joseph Lind seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying various nondispositive motions, the court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Lind’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
As a preliminary matter, we grant Lind’s motion to supplement the informal appendix. In addition, limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Lind’s informal brief, we conclude that Lind has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, deny his motion to certify, deny his motions to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED