United States District Court, D. Maryland
JAMES A. HENSON, JR. Plaintiff.
RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., et al., Defendants.
RICHARD D. BENNETT, District Judge.
Pending are Defendants Warden Richard J. Graham, Jr., Assistant Warden Denise Gelsinger, Security Chief Michael P. Thomas, Psychologist Ronald S. Weber, and Lt. William F. Gordon's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's responses thereto. ECF Nos. 19 & 21. Upon review of the papers filed, the Court finds a hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014).
Plaintiff seeks assignment to protective custody and a federal investigation of his claims. He alleges, generally, that Defendants have interfered with his liberties, violated his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and engaged in misconduct, racial bias, and use of excessive force. ECF No. 1, p. 3.
Plaintiff also claims that Defendants will not install video cameras in certain "high risk" areas where he alleges assaults upon African American inmates occur. He alleges that guards are racists and senior staff and medical employees are permitted to mace, beat, maim, torture, and murder African American prisoners. Id.
Plaintiff specifies that Defendant Gelsinger deliberately hid racist staff "from the limelight" to conceal the "2005-2014 skillfully planned, racially motivated pattern of abuse, to mislead and divert the court form the real issues, in this case and to manipulate public-opinion from the media.'" Id. As to Defendant Weber, Plaintiff maintains that Weber will not intervene where it concerns African American victims of malicious abuse by custody from 2005-2014. Id. Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations as to any of the other named Defendants. Id.
In general, as in numerous other Complaints filed by Plaintiff, he claims that Defendants continually place him in harm's way and refuse to develop an adequate policy to address risks to his health, safety and welfare. Id. 
Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff has filed numerous complaints alleging that he is at risk of assassination by a conspiracy of racist correctional officers and gang members. His claims have been investigated and found unsubstantiated, resulting in the dismissal of the claims both administratively and judicially. See e.g. Henson v. Likin Civil Action No. RWT-11-2719 (D. Md.); Henson v. Miller, Civil Action No. RWT-12-763 (D. Md.); Henson v. Lambert, Civil Action No. RWT-12-3271 (D. Md.); See Henson v. Smith, et al., Civil Action No. RWT-13-2266 (D.Md.).
Standard of Review
A. Motion to Dismiss
The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). The dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted does not require defendant to establish "beyond doubt" that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 561 (2007). Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint. Id. at 563. The court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations, see Revene v. Charles County Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, see Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, see United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979).
B. Motion for Summary Judgment
Summary Judgment is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) which provides that:
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is ...