United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. BREDAR, CHIEF JUDGE
is a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for
summary judgment filed by defendants Warden Richard E.
Miller, Former Commissioner Wayne Webb, Security Chief Todd
Faith, Lieutenant Mark Cutter, and Lieutenant Dave
Appel. ECF 20. Plaintiff was informed by the
court, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975), that the failure to file a response in
opposition to the motion filed by defendants could result in
dismissal of the complaint. ECF 22. Plaintiff has not filed
an opposition to the motion. Upon review of the papers and
exhibits filed, the court finds an oral hearing in this
matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2016). For the reasons stated below, the Motion will be
case was instituted upon receipt of a complaint filed by
plaintiff Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, a former state inmate. ECF 1.
Plaintiff states that on September 30, 2016, Officer Cutter
ordered Officer Thomas to confiscate all of his personal and
legal property and directed he be placed on administrative
segregation. ECF 1 at p. 3. Plaintiff was not provided with a
confiscation form or property inventory. Id. Later
that day, plaintiff was served with a "Notice of
Assignment to Administrative Segregation," which
indicated he would be seen by his case management team within
five days and would be given an opportunity to be heard
regarding his assignment and retention on administrative
segregation. Id. The only information provided
regarding his assignment to administrative segregation was
that "an investigation [was] pending in his case."
October 5, 2016, plaintiff appeared before Cutter and other
unidentified people but was not provided an opportunity to be
heard regarding his assignment. Cutter refused to explain why
plaintiff was placed on administrative segregation and
refused to return plaintiffs property or provide him a
receipt for the items. ECF 1 at pp. 3-4.
also alleged that from September 30, 2016, to the signing of
his complaint on October 7, 2016, he was not provided a
change of clothes, clean linens, hygiene items, a clean
mattress, blankets, his medically prescribed diet, or
prescribed medications. ECF 1 at p. 4.
asserts the following causes of action: 1. Failure to
Protect; 2. Failure to Supervise and Train; 3. Cruel and
Unusual Punishment; 4. Denial and Interference with Access to
Court; and 5. Denial of Due Process. ECF 1 at pp. 5-9. He
seeks a declaratory judgment and compensatory and punitive
damages in the amount of $7, 500, 000.
David Appel and Lt. Mark Cutter advise that they participated
in an investigation conducted at Roxbury Correctional
Institution (RCI) involving plaintiff and other inmates who
were believed to be extorting commissary from the special
needs inmates in their housing unit. ECF 20-3, ¶ 3
(Appel Deck); ECF 20-4, ¶ 3 (Cutter Decl). The
investigation was connected to an investigation conducted by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on one of the
inmates suspected in the extortion. Id. In
conjunction with the investigation and in order to determine
whether there was any evidence plaintiff was involved in the
extortion, Appel directed plaintiffs cell be searched and his
property confiscated. ECF 20-3, ¶ 4; ECF 20-4, ¶ 4.
The investigation also sought to determine whether plaintiff
was holding any paperwork for the inmate that was involved in
the FBI investigation. Id. As a result of the
investigation, plaintiff was placed on administrative
segregation and moved to housing unit five. ECF 20-3, ¶
5; ECF 20-5. Once the investigators searched plaintiffs
property, it was placed back in the cart in which they had
received it and locked. ECF 20-3, ¶ 6; ECF 20-4, ¶
6. The cart was then taken to plaintiffs housing unit so that
it could be inventoried and the property returned to
plaintiff. Id. Appel and Cutter each deny keeping
any property placed in the cart. ECF 20-3, ¶ 7; ECF
20-4, ¶ 7. On November 1, 2016, plaintiff was cleared of
the extortion accusation, removed from administrative
segregation, and returned to general population. ECF 20-3,
¶ 8; ECF 20-4, ¶ 8; ECF 20-8 at p. 2 (Notification
of Case Management Action).
Faith, Chief of Security at RCI, avers that property
confiscated due to an investigation is managed in accordance
with agency directive IIU 220.0002, 220.0004 and RCI
Directive 220.0004.1. ECF 20-7, ¶ 3 (Faith Deck). Inmates
assigned to administrative segregation are placed there in
accordance with the Case Management Manual and are provided
personal property in accordance with adopted policies.
Id., ¶ 4. Faith offers that staff are
periodically trained on the proper procedures for placement
of an inmate on Administrative Segregation and the procedures
regarding inmate property. Id., ¶5. He further
avers that each officer is certified annually by the
"Training Commission." Id. He does not
explain what the Training Commission is.
have provided copies of plaintiff s pertinent medical
records. ECF 20-6. On September 30, 2016, he was evaluated by
medical staff who cleared him for placement on segregation.
ECF 20-6 at p. 5. A "Behavioral Health Segregation
Visit" note was entered on October 5, 2016, which
indicated, among other things, that plaintiffs mental health
status was unremarkable and that he would be continued on
segregation pending the outcome of the investigation.
Id. at p. 6. He was evaluated on October 11, 2016,
by Nurse Practitioner Christine Coble. Id. at p. 7.
At that time, plaintiff reported he was compliant with
prescribed medication and denied any side effects. He
expressed frustration with being placed on administrative
segregation without explanation. Id. at p. 7. His
prescription for Prozac was continued and he was provided a
short term prescription for Vistaril, as needed, "for
adjustment to seg." Id. On October 31, 2016, he
was seen for another "Behavioral Health Segregation
Visit." Id. at p. 11. His mental health status
was appropriate and unremarkable. Id. It was noted
that he was to be removed from administrative segregation as
the investigation was complete. Id. Plaintiff was
next seen by medical staff November 7, 2016, for a scheduled
chronic care visit. Id. at pp. 12-14. No. new
medical concerns were noted, his medications were continued,
and he was scheduled to return to the clinic in three months.
Standard of Review