IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division VINCENT ELLIOT WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 3:23cv82 (DJN) BETH ARTHUR, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Vincent Elliot Wilson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this

action.! Wilson’s request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. (ECF No. 2.) The matter is before the Court for evaluation of Wilson’s Complaint pursuant to

(e)(2) and 1915A. For the reasons stated below, the Complaint, (ECF No. 1), and the action will be DISMISSED. I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), this Court must dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines that the action (1) “is frivolous” or (2) “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

(e)(2), 1915A. The first standard includes claims based upon “an indisputably meritless legal theory,” or claims where

| The statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute. . . of any State. . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.

.

th"efa ctcuoanlt eanrcteli eobanarssl eylC elsvasY.y.a "t8 e0Fs9.S, u p4p1.47 2,(7E .VDa.. 199(2q)u oNteiinvtgW.z i klel 4i9aU0m. s3S,1.3 9 2,(71 98T9h)se)e .cs otnadn idtsah red famisltiaanfordra arm do ttidooi ns muinsdFsee rd eRruaollCfe i vPirlo c1e2d(ubr)e( 6). "Am ottidooi ns umnidsResur 1l 2e( bt)e(ts6hts)esu fficioeafcn ocmyp laint; imporitdtao nnetosrlt ey s,co olnvtese usrtrsot uhnfaedc ittnshmg,ee roifatc sl aoitrm h,e appliocdfae bfeinlsiRetesyp. u"bP lairoctyNfa . nvC. M. a rt9i8Fn0., 92 4d93 5,(2 4 Ctihr .

199(2c)i5 tAiC hnagr Al.We rsi &gA hrtth Ru.Mr i lFleedreP,rr aalca tnPidrc oec §e1 d3u5r6e (199I0cn)o )n.s iad emroittdnoiig os nfom irfas islt usort eaa c tlea aic mo,urta ccae pts plaiwnetlilff-sap llleeagdaaesttdr ai unoevdn i set whcseo mpiltnah ileni tmg ohsfattv ortaob le thpel aiMnytliLaffan.b I sn.vcM,..a tka1rFi.,31 1d3101,3( 44C tih1r 9.9 M3a)r;t9 i8Fn0., 2 d a9t5 2T.hp irsi nacpippollnietle faoysc taulalle ghaotwieoavnne"sdrac, , o ucrotn siad ering mottidooi ns cmaicsnhs o tobose egb iyin d entpilfyeiantdghib anetgc,sat uharseeeyn om ore thcaonn claursneioe otnn tsti,tto hl aees ds umoptftr iuoAtnsh h.c"vr I.oq ftb5 a5lU6,. 6 S6.2 , 67(92 009). ThFee deRrualolefC s i vPirlo c"erdeuqr]ueo i nr'lseayh[ oarnptdl asitna toeftmh een t

clasihmo wtihtnahgpte l eiaesdn etrit rote lleiidone r fdt,e'o'r g itvhdeee fenfadianrno tto ifc e whatth. e.c l.ai iasmn t dhg er ouunpdowsnh iicrthe stBseA.lt"lC/' o. rv pT..w ombly, 55U0. 5S4.54 5,(5 2 0(0s7e)ca olntdei ronar tiigo(incn iatolam)ti itoTtnhep edl )a.ic natninffo t sattihssifyts a nwdiactrohdm plcaoinnttaosin "nlliyan abgne cdlo sn clouars" ifoornmsu"l aic reciottfah teeil oenmo eafnc tasuo sfae c tiIod(n.c. i"t oamtiitoItnnessd tt)eh.pae ld a,i ntiff musatl lfaecgsteus ffic"iterona tair sietg rohe tl aibeotfvhs eep eculleavtieid(lcv ,ie"t ation omitstteadatc) il,na tgih ima"s tp laounsi itfabscl eie,da " 5t 7 r0a,t thhemaren r ely "conceiidv" aAcb llaheia,fams"c ipalla uswihbetinhpl eli atyi pnltefaiacffdt scu oanltt heantt alltohcweos u trdotr atwhr ee asoinnafbetlrheeta nhdtcee e fe nidlsani tafo brtl hmeei sconduct alleIgqebd5a.5lU"6,. a S6t.7 (8c iBteiAlntlCg! o .r 5p5.U0,. aS5t.5 6I)on.r dfoerarc laoirm comptlsoau irndvtii svmefoi rs sfaatilsol t uaarc tele a tihme,r tehfoperl ea,im nuts"itaff l lege facstusf fitcsoit eaanltttleh e el emoef[n htoisrhs ]e c rl aiBma.vsE.".s1 D uPodneNt e mo&urs Co3.2,F4 . 736d71 6,5 C(i24r0t.0h (3 c)iD tiicnksvgoM. ni crCoosro3pf0.tF9, . 139d23 1,3 (4Ctihr . I2o0dv0iU.2cn )ei; t ed2 8SF9t. 2a37td20e 8,s(1,4 C tihr . 2002)a)c .o uLrats tl

muslti becroanlspltrysro ceuo em plGaoirndvtLo.sen ,e 5k7eF4,. 121d4 171,5( 14C tih1r 9.7 8), idto neosat ca tts h ien maatdev'ossc uasatp eod,ne tvee lopianngcd o sntsattiuttuotriyo na clatihmtashit en mfaaitlete codl eraaroilnsty eh fa ec oehf i cso mplBariovncC.tka . r r1o0l7l , F.234d21 4,(34 Ctih1r 9.9 (7L)u Jt.tc,iog n,c urrinvgC.)i o;tyHf a Bmepa7tu7odF5ne. ,t2 td 127142,7(4 8 tC hi 1r9.8 5). II.PERTINSEUNMTM AROYFA LLEGATAINODNC SL AIMS Inh iCso mplWaiilnsntoa,nm a esDs e fendaAnrtlsi:Cn ogutnoDtney t enFtaicoinl ity SheBreiAtffrh t Chourri,Hz eoa(nl" tCho rainzMdoe nd"iC)ko or reHcetailot(nh"acMlae rdei ko") (ECNFo1 .a, 2t . W)i laslolnte hgfoeel sl o2wing:

10O.nJ u1l4y2, 0 2i1tn,h a eft ernIoa ornr,ai Dtve efedn dBaeAntrtht hfaucri'lsi ty, ArliCnogutDnoetnty e Fnatciiolni ty. 11I.w entth rotuhigenh t maekdeis ccarle deunripinrngog c easntsdoi tlnhdge nurmsype r obblueIwtm a ss,en x'amti rniegdh t. 12A. femwo nltahtsIte orDl,ed fe ndCanotr iHzeoatnlh tIahh ta avs ee vrearseh onm eb uwta isg noarnnedodt t r eated. 13T.hdeo ctthowaratr s e preDseefenntdCiaonnrgtiH zeoa.nl .wtah.Ms r A.s hby. 14T.hvee sreyv reariseosh n t hbeo totfmo yms tomaancadtht h teoo pfb oth thiognanh dsn ,e tahrge r oairnre eaad,nl di bglhatlc oko king. 15I.tnh peaa sntud p oanr rIii vnafolrD,me efedn dCaonrtiHsze oaanln tMdhe diko CorreHcetailotnvhaeclra baraneild wnl r yi stiiccnakgtl hlIash t a avv ee sreyv ere raosnmh e a nnde tebode t reated. 2 ThCeo uermtp ltohpyeas g inaastsiitogtonnh C eeod m plbayti hCneMt / EdCoFc keting systTehCmeo. u crotrr etchcteas p itaslpiezlaalntpidiun ongnc,,t i utnah qteui ootnafr toimo ns thCeo mplaint. 16I.nb etwJeaennu1 a3ry- 22042,I2l ,ea lt a nduyr rseep reDseefenntdianngt MediCkoor reHcetailotnkhanclota whrI age toa ts evrearmseehw hiolnme e dical unciet#l1 l1w heIn wdaoswt nh ewrheeIc n a ucgohrto na. 17I.b elsihelevi eae ndtd o mleds hwea gso itnotg r meeaa tn pdr esmceribe sometbhuditin dgn 't. 18.DefenBdeatAnhrt t hpuorl'risec qyu tihraaeltisl n mahtaevaser igthot adequatcea ormareett deincptaeiilron nmh,aa tned book. 19I.hta bse eonv aey re baerfo Irr ee cetirveeadat nmtdeh sneet v rearhseah s gottweonr dsuete o D efendCaonrtisHz eoanla tnMhde diCkoorr ectional Healtdheclaaeryxeiam nign aanttdir oena tment. 20O.nO cto2b72e,0r 2 a2at, p prox7i:ma3a.5tm Iefi. ll,yl o euadtD efendant MediCkoorr ecHteiaolntashlicc caakrrl eelq aunetdsot tl hdet mha an tu rhsaed tomledt hIaw tag so itnboge c altlmoee dd iccoanlc etrnhriean sbgha ,tc hkie nn Janu2a0r2by2uw ,ta nse vcearl led. 21N.ovem1b2,e0 r2a 2at,p prox1i: m0pa5.t mIew. le,ynd to wtnom ediacnadl seCeonr iHzeoaNnlu thr Dsoen Inb ae,l tiheavhteen' ras m aen,Idw absa sically examdi]on neIci[ en forhmeeardb otuhstee vrearwsehh i Iwl aeos r igdionwanlly theforrse o metehlmisonerig em portant. 22N.exIt ,wg aisvan edpn r escsroimHbeye ddr ocboyrD teifesnodCnaoenr ti zon HeaNlutrhDs oen wnaaask eoenpp er(sKoOncP )o ntfrroamDc etfe ndManetd iko CorreHcetailothnwcaiatltrh hene amiero ni t. 23D.uteot hdee aothfi nmaotfce osli onDr e fenBdeatAnhrt t hfaucri'lsi ty, CoriHzeoanlw tahss u ppotsol eedab vaect kh einnD ecem2b0e2pr1e ,r WashiPnognstetow ns pbausptoe mnreu, r ssteasy ed. 24T.heDne fendBaentAthr tlheuDtre fendMaendtiC koor reHcetailotnhacla re taokveea rft eDre fendCaonrtiH zeoanld tehp'asar ttt huAerr el inCgotuonnty Detefanctiiloint y. 25N.ovem2b62e,0r 2a 2at,p prox3i:mp4a.1tmI efi. ll,ylo euadts ircekq fourest ar efiloltfi hcnerg eH aymd rocaonridtwt ia bssro onuetgm ohe tt hd eaa yft er. 26D.ece2m7b2,e0 r2a 2at,p prox1i01m:0pa .tmIefi. ll,ylo euadst i ccakrl elq uest forar efiomlfyl c reHaymd rocfoorrt thsiees vorenarese h . 27J.anu1ary52 ,0 2a3at,p prox1i0m:pa1.t5meI g.l o,yats iccakrl elq uest from thneu rasnfiedl lieotdu an td turn edi itnb uhta tdog iivtteot hheo usuinnigt depounut nyli l tAc e#l8al b oaru etfi lolfmi yHn ygd roccorretami.sone 28A.sa r esouftl hDtee fendCaonrtiHsze oanCl atrahen M de diCkoorr ectional Healtbhecinanergge l iingjemunertp e,hd y siacnmadal dtlehys e e vrearwseoh r se byw aittiolnoag tt ote r meeafa,ti ltiogn igmv een ecemsesdaryi coantcIieo n infortmheeodmtf hies sue. (Iad3t.- 5.) Wilcsoonnt tehnaadlttslh ree DveifeonlhdaiaEtsnie tgdash n tFdho urteenth Amendrmiegnbhtydt esn yhiianmdg e qmueadticeca 3ara lent dh Daetfe ndCaonrtiaszn odn Mediwkeora eln seog laingcdeo nmtm imtetdeimdca allp ruancdstetirlac atew(e I. ad 6t - 7.) Wilassofoknrsm onedtaamrayag nefodsrt hCeo utr"ot[ i]asnisdnu jeu rnecqtuitiohrnai tn g DefendCaonrtiHsze oaannld tM he diCkoor reHcetailotnpharcloa vtrihmedeu e c h-needed

treattcomu emrneetd inceauelnd gt oinl(e I.ad"8t. . ) IIIA.NALYSIS Iitbs o utnhn ecaensidsn arayp prtoeopn rgiiaanagn ete xe t ednidsecduo sWfs iilosno n's theoforrri eelsSi eeCefo .c hvrM.ao nr r7i3F.s 3,1 d3 1103,1(4 5 tC hi 1r9.9 (e6 m)p hatshiazti ng "abbrterveiaatticmesoed nn stwi"is Cttohen ngtr veissfosir'to shnd e i spoosfrfi itviooolrno us "insubcsltaai(cnm itstNi"iea nilgtv zW.ki el l4i9aU0m. s3S,1. 39 2,(4 1 98A9sd) i)s.c ussed belWoiwl,s Coonm'pslw aibilednl it s mfoirsfa sieltdiso nt gaa c tleafo irrm e lief. A. NoP ersonallnvolvement Firisontr ,dt esort aav tiea cbllauein md4 e2Ur . S§.1 C9.8a p3 l,a imnutsaitlff lt ehgaae t

perascotnui nndcgeo rlo osfrt laatdwee prhiivomehr de o raf c onstirtiuogtorhiaft o nrailg ht confebrryael da owtf h Uen iStteadSt eeDeso .wv eT. o tAacltA igoaniP nosvtei rRntyo anoke Val1l4eF5y. ,63 5d63 5,(84 Ctih1r 9.9 (8c)i 4t2Ui .nSg§. 1 C9.8 "3G)o.v ernmoeffinctim aalys nobte lhiealfobdrtl hueen constciotnudotutfich otsen uiabrlo rudnidnatea hrte eoosfry respondeaItq bs5au5lpU6,e. raS6it.7o (6rc. i"t oamtiitotTneossd t )aal. te eg saulflfiyc ient clafoiram na llveigoeldoa aftfe idoecnro anls tirtiug"th[iptaol,]na aimlnu tspitlff et ahedaa tc h Governmentd-eofffiecntidhaarlnot tuho,geffi h c ioawlin'n sd iavcitdiuhoaavnlsis o,lt ahtee d

3 AlthWoiulghshao fisnv s ee panruamtbepelaryre adg forrha iEpsih gsanh dtF ho urteenth Amendcmleantithm efissv,pee a ragarlalopenhcgesle a oifdm e noifaad le qmueadticeca arle . (ECNFo1 .a, 6t - 7F.u)r tahese xrp,lb aeilnioePnwda 1 r1t1 t.hEBei. g,Ah mtehn ddmoenenostt apptlWoyi lscolna'bisem csa,Wu isleisl soi nk ape rleydtr eitaali nee. Constitution.” Jd. Accordingly, a plaintiff must allege facts that affirmatively show “that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plaintiff[’s] rights.” Vinnedge v. Gibbs,

(4th Cir. 1977) (internal quotation marks omitted); Trulock v. Freeh,

(4th Cir. 2001) (noting that liability is “personal, based upon each defendant’s own constitutional violations”). 1. Defendant Beth Arthur Wilson contends that Defendant Arthur as Sheriff is liable, because she “is generally responsible and liable for all staff actions,” (ECF No. 1, at 2), and was responsible for hiring the medical contractors, (id. at 5). Wilson fails to allege any facts that would suggest that Defendant Arthur acted personally in the deprivation of Wilson’s constitutional rights. Rather, Wilson attempts to impose liability on Defendant Arthur as the Sheriff for Arlington County based entirely on respondeat superior. Because Wilson alleges that Defendant Arthur should be held liable simply based on her position, he fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. /gbal, 556 U.S. at 676.* For this reason alone, Wilson’s claim against Defendant Arthur shall be DISMISSED. 2. Medical Contractors Wilson also contends that Defendants Corizon and Mediko denied him adequate medical care for his rash. A private corporation cannot be held liable “for torts committed by [its

4 To the extent that Wilson contends that Defendant Arthur is somehow liable on a theory of supervisory liability, that claim would also fail. To allege a claim that a supervising officer failed to fulfill her duties to protect an inmate by ensuring her subordinates act within the law, the inmate must show: (1) that the supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that h[er] subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor’s response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices; and (3) that there was an affirmative causal link between the supervisor’s inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.

emplowyheesenus lc]ih a bipisrl eidtiuyc paoattn he edoo rfre ys posnudpeearAtiu osvrt..i "n ParamPoaurnkst,1 9IF5.n 37cd1. 75,2, (48 t Chi 1r9.9( c9 i)t ationIsn sot"meapiar tdit,ve adt)e. corpoirlsai tauibnold§nee1 r9 83w hoenanlno y f fipcoilaoilcrc uys ottfo hmCe o rporation cautshaeels l deegperdi ovffea dteirroiangl hI td(es. m. p"h ians iosr (ci igtianotamilio)tn tse d).

Anu nconstoiftfiupctoiilaooilcrnc u aysl t om can iafonru iwrsa ey( 1s )t: h roauneg xhp rpeoslssiu cacysah,w riotrtdeinn ance orr egul(a2tt)ih ornot;uhd geeh c iosfia op nesrw siotnfih n aplo licymaking auth(o3rt)ih tryoa;uno g mhi sssuiacosahnfa ,i ltuporr eo pterroalfiyfin c tehrast, "manifest[s] detloti hbreei rgoahfctt iest iioznre(d n4its)ffh" er;roa eu ngche practthiiasscto" e p ersanidws itdeenstap str coeo ands"at " ictuusottrueo s ma ge witthhfoe r coefl aw." LytvDl.oe y 3l2eF6,. 436d43 7,(14 Ctih2r 0.0( 3a)l tieornra itgi(ioqnnua oClta)ir nvtg.e r Morr1i6Fs4., 23 1d5 ,(241Ct7ih r . s1eA9eu9 s91t)9i)F5n;. , a3 7td2 (9e xpltahianti ng prinacpipplliyecniso n ngot mfe uxnti cainpldao lcgiaotlvy e rnme"naertqesu aaplpllyit aco a ble pricvoartpeo arcatutinindosgent r la atwe" ). HerWei,l hsaomsna dneoe ffoarhst em, u s"tti,od entthoiefffy e n[dcionrpgo proaltiec]y [ocru stwoimpt]rh e ciCsairo1tn6e.F4r". ,a 3 2td1 8B.e caWuislefas iotlnios d enatniyfy polmiuccylh,ea ss sp ecpiofilocicr cu ys otDfoe mfe ndCaonrtioszMr oe nd itkhdoae,tp rived hiomhf i cso nstirtiughthefait iostln,sosa t laa c tleafo irrm e lFioetrfh r.ie sa asloonn e, Wilso claaigmasDi enfesntd Caonrtiaszn Moden d iskhoob ueDl IdS MISSED.

ShavwS. t r1o3uF d.7,39 d71 9,(9 4 Ctih1r 9.9 (4i)n tqeurnoatlma atriakonscnd i tations omitWtieldfs)ao.tin aol l sl faecgttehss a utp aponorynt oe tf h etsherfa ecet oArcsc.o rdingly, Wilhsaofasni ltesodt aac tleafo irsm u pervliisaobriyl ity. B. Fourteenth Amendment Claim 1. Applicable Law Even if Wilson had pled sufficient facts to allege Defendants’ individual liability, he would nevertheless fail to state a cognizable claim for relief. Wilson argues that Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they denied him adequate medical care. (ECF No. 1, at 6-7.) However, because Wilson was likely a pretrial detainee and not a convicted prisoner at the time at the time of his allegations that Defendants “show[ed] ‘deliberate indifference’ to [his] health,” (ECF No. 1, at 7), the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment, governs his claim. Moss v. Harwood, 19 F 4th 614, 624 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing Martin v. Gentile,

(4th Cir. 1988)); Mays v. Sprinkle,

(4th Cir. 2021). “The due process rights of a pretrial detainee are at least as great as the eighth amendment protections available to the convicted prisoner.” Martin,

. Therefore, “‘a pretrial detainee makes out a violation [of the Fourteenth Amendment] at least where ‘he shows deliberate indifference to serious medical needs’ under cases interpreting the Eighth Amendment.” Mays,

(quoting Gentile,

). To plead an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must allege facts that (1) objectively indicate that the deprivation suffered or harm inflicted “was ‘sufficiently serious,’ and (2) subjectively indicate that the prison officials acted with a ‘sufficiently culpable state of mind.”” Johnson v. Quinones,

(4th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wilson v. Seiter,

(1991)). With respect to the denial of adequate medical care, “a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble,

(1976). A medical need is “serious” if it “Shas been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person

would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.’” [ko v. Shreve,

(4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Henderson v. Sheahan,

(7th Cir. 1999)). In the context of delayed medical care, the objective-prong analysis does not end there. In addition to demonstrating that a medical need that was objectively serious, a plaintiff must also establish that the delay in the provision of medical care “‘resulted in substantial harm.’” Mata v. Saiz,

(10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Oxendine v. Kaplan,

(10th Cir. 2001)); see Webb v. Hamidullah,

(4th Cir. 2008). “[T]he substantial harm requirement may be satisfied by lifelong handicap, permanent loss, or considerable pain.” Shabazz v. Prison Health Servs., Inc.,

, at *5 (E.D. Va. 2012) (quoting Garrett v. Stratman,

(10th Cir. 2001)). The subjective prong requires the plaintiff to allege facts which indicate that a particular defendant acted with deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994). “Deliberate indifference is a very high standard—a showing of mere negligence will not meet it.” Grayson v. Peed,

(4th Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle,

). [A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference. Farmer,

. Farmer teaches “that general knowledge of facts creating a substantial risk of harm is not enough. The prison official must also draw the inference between those general facts and the specific risk of harm confronting the inmate.” Quinones,

(citing Farmer,

); see Rich v. Bruce,

(4th Cir. 1997) (same). Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, the deliberate indifference standard requires a plaintiff to assert facts sufficient to form the inference that “the official in question subjectively recognized a

substantial risk of harm” and “that the official in question subjectively recognized that his actions were ‘inappropriate in light of that risk.”” Parrish ex rel. Lee v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d-294, 303 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Rich,

n.2). “To establish that a health care provider’s actions constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the treatment must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v. Beorn,

(4th Cir. 1990) (citing Rogers v. Evans,

(11th Cir. 1986)). Furthermore, in evaluating a prisoner’s complaint regarding medical care, the Court is mindful that “society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care” or to the medical treatment of their choosing. Hudson v. McMillian,

(1992) (citing Estelle,

). In this regard, the right to medical treatment is limited to that treatment which is medically necessary and not to “that which may be considered merely desirable.” Bowring v. Godwin,

(4th Cir. 1977). Moreover, “[i]t may not be seriously contended that any prisoner detained for however short a period is entitled to have all his needed elective medical care performed while in custody ....” Kersh v. Bounds,

(4th Cir. 1974). Wilson fails to allege facts to satisfy the objective prong of the Fourteenth Amendment inquiry.” Wilson claims that he had a “severe rash” but freely admits that even though he had purportedly had this “severe rash” for some time, he sought medical treatment for other health concerns that were “more important.” (ECF No. 1, at 4.) While a severe rash might plausibly

5 While Wilson also does not allege facts indicating that Defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of harm to Wilson and, thus, fails to satisfy the subjective component of the Fourteenth Amendment as well, no need exists to extensively examine that here. Wilson’s claims may be readily dismissed, because he fails to demonstrate any constitutionally significant injury from Defendants’ actions. 10

resiusnlu tffi ciseenrthilaoyruu mns d tehFreo urtAemeenntdhmW einlfatsi,otl naos l laengye suicnhj huerrSyee H.ea nravMh.ea nnn 4o7nF0,A. p p3'23x,3 ( 2Cdi 2r0.1 (2e)x pltahianti ng ac ondiisstu ifofincs ieerniitifoilt u'sy s" c ao ndoiuft rigoenon ntcehy ma,at py r odduecaet h, degeneorerax ttriepoman"'ei (, nq uoHtaitnhgav Cw.oay u g9h9lF i.5n35,d50 5,(3 2 Cdi r. 1996I)n)s)tW.ei aldds,oon enos at l lfaecgitens d itchahatesti u nffgea rnieynd j muurclyhe,a s s seroisro iugsn ipfihcyasoniertc m aolt iinojnfruaorlDmy e,fe ndfaainlttustor'r e he iarsta sh.

Wilasloasnlo l neosg iegsn iafidcvaneetrff sefreco tmts h dee liarnye ceiving hydroccorretfraiomsDm oe nfeen dSanetMesa .t4 a2,F7 . a37td5 1A.tm osWti,l csloanti hmast threa gsoht waonhrde"s seu,ff furtehreeirdn jaunprdhy y siincjawulir tyha"on furtuyht e r expla(naEtCNiFo1o .a,n 5t .7, . T)h iiissn suffitcpoil eanustsu igbgtlheyhas estt u ffearneyd substhaanrfrtmoi mta hdlee lTahyuW.si ,l fasiotlnaos l lfaecgitens d itchatathdtiee n lgia ny recetrievaitnimgte scneatlu hfsi esmdu bsthaanrStmei.Wea e lb2 b8,F1 A. p pa'1tx6 6I.sn u m, becaWuisleas lolnne oig nejsu ryD efrfoemna dcanttihsoefa n itslso,sa ttihosebfy jepcrtoinvge otfh Feo urtAemeenntdihmn eqnutWi irlysc.ol nao'ifsm doeafnd ieaqmlue adticeca warilel l beD ISMISfoSrfaE iDl tusort eaa c tlea im. C. StaLtaeCw l aims

Wilaslovsnao g useulgygt ehDsaettfes n dCaonrtiaszn Moden d ickoom mi't'tttoehrtde omfe dimcaallp raanctdth" ietc ooenfr"e t g liugnedsnetcrlae at"w(e .E CNFo1 .a, 7t . A)g ain, Wilfasiotlnaos l ltehbgeae mr ien irmeuqmu tisort eaacd tl eafo irrm e lief.p eGnednaenrta ll stlaatcwel asihmosbu edl ids miitfsh sfeeed dec rlaalai rdmeis s mbiesfostrerediU anli.t ed MinWeo rkveG.ri sb3 b8sU3,. 7S1.75 2,(6 1 96I6ln)i .og tfhh tpe r elidmiisnmaoirytfs h sea l fedecrlaalai nmthdsev agueonWfe islsss otnla'atscwel atihmCeso ,ud retc ltieonx eesri ctiss e discretion to retain the state tort claims. Jenkins v. Weatherholtz,

(4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, Plaintiff's state law claims will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IV. CONCLUSION Wilson’s constitutional claim will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Wilson’s state law claims will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The action will be DISMISSED. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to note the disposition of the action for purposes of

(g). An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Let the Clerk file a copy of the Memorandum Opinion electronically and send a copy to Wilson. /s/ David J. Novak United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Dated: March 14, 2023

12