United States District Court, D. Maryland
XINIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Leroy Waiters, currently incarcerated at the Jessup
Correctional Institution (“JCI”) in Jessup,
Maryland, brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Defendant, Warden Casey Campbell.
See ECF Nos. 1, 3. Waiters claims that he was badly
beaten by correctional officers at JCI on January 21, 2018,
requiring medical attention at a hospital. See ECF
No. 1 at 2, 3, 6; ECF No. 3 at 2. Waiters further asserts
that Defendant denied his request for administrative remedy
(“ARP”) regarding the incident. ECF No. 1. As
damages, Waiters seeks “1 million dollars in damages
per officer.” ECF No. 1 at 9.
August 1, 2018, Defendant moved to dismiss the action, or
alternatively for summary judgment in his favor. ECF No. 13.
Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), the Court notified Waiters that failure to
respond to the motion risks dismissal of the Complaint. ECF
No. 14. Waiters did not respond. The Court has reviewed the
pleadings and finds a hearing unnecessary. See Local
Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). Defendant's Motion shall be
granted and the Complaint shall be dismissed.
February 22, 2018, Waiters initiated this action by filing
with the Court a copy of a ARP that the Defendant had
previously denied. ECF No. 1. In the ARP, Waiters requested
segregation, stating that “or around Jan. 21st 2018, .
. . [he] was viciously beaten by at least 5 or more
correctional officers.” Id. at
The date of “Jan. 21st 2018, ” however, appears
to have been written over the date “November,
2017;” Waiters signed the ARP form on “5 Dec
2017, ” and it was received by the Warden's Office
on December 12, 2017. Id.
March 14, 2018, the Court directed Waiters to supplement his
Complaint to include the names of the persons responsible for
the alleged wrongdoing, the federal law or constitutional
violations alleged, the dates of the alleged incidents, and
facts supporting his claim. ECF No. 2. On March 27, 2018,
Waiters submitted a supplement which names the
“Warden” as the sole Defendant and includes the
I was beat to death by these officers in JCI so bad that I
was send [sic] out on the outside on 911 . . . . I was beat
up by few officer [sic] at JCI and they beat me so hard I
went out to Hospital on 911 to death and they lock me up on
lock-up . . . .
3 at 2-3. The Court now reaches the merits of the pending
motion to dismiss.
principally argues that he is immune from suit under the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Alternatively Defendant argues that dismissal is warranted
because he did not personally participate in any claimed
constitutional deprivations and that even if he did, he is
qualifiedly immune. ECF No. 13-1.
extent the Court reads the Complaint to sue Defendant in his
official capacity, Eleventh Amendment immunity acts to bar
suit. Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, a state, its
agencies and departments enjoy immunity suits in federal
court brought by its citizens or the citizens of another
state, absent waiver of such protection. See Pennhurst
State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100
(1984). State employees sued in their official capacity enjoy
similar immunity because filing suit against an agent of the
state is tantamount to a suit against the state itself.
Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-72 (1985).
Maryland has not consented to suit in federal Court for
alleged constitutional violations brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Consequently, Defendant in his official
capacity also is immune from suit in federal court.
to the extent Defendant is sued for acts taken in his
individual capacity, no such acts have been pleaded. Because
the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to §
1983 claims, Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 402
(4th Cir. 2001), Defendant cannot be responsible merely for
occupying the position of Warden at the time Defendant was
allegedly mistreated. See Love-Lane v. Martin, 355
F.3d 766, 782 (4th Cir. 2004). Reading Plaintiff's claims
most favorably to him, the Warden's only alleged personal
involvement concerns his previous denial of Waiters' ARP.
See ECF Nos. 1, 3. This denial, however, does not
rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. Nor has
Waiters alleged any facts that Defendant is liable pursuant
to Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of
New York, for unconstitutional actions taken pursuant to
an official policy or custom. 436 U.S. 658, 690-91
(1978).Accordingly, viewing the facts as pleaded
most favorably to Waiters, the Defendant simply has not acted
to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. The court,
therefore, dismisses the claim and declines to reach whether
Defendant is also qualifiedly immune.