Moore v. D.O.C.
Moore v. D.O.C.
Trial Court Opinion
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COI AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT December 30, 2024 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION BY: s/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK MARVIN MAURICE MOORE, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:24cv00036 ) v. ) OPINION and ORDER ) D.O.C.,, et al., ) By: Robert S. Ballou Defendants. ) United States District Judge
Plaintiff Marvin Maurice Moore, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he has not been provided his legal mail or religious materials that were taken from his possession when he was transferred and that he was held in a dry cell at Greensville Correctional Center from August 10, 2023, through August 18, 2023. He has named as defendants the Department of Corrections, Pocahontas State Correctional Center, Lawrenceville Correctional Center, Greensville Correctional Center as Romos, and Ardesia (Sgts) on 8-day shift. Upon preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court has determined that this case must be dismissed without prejudice because Moore has not sued proper parties under § 1983. Section 1983 provides a cause of action against a “person” who, acting under color of state law, violates the constitutional rights of another.
42 U.S.C. § 1983; Loftus v. Bobzien,
848 F.3d 278, 284-85(4th Cir. 2017). Liability under § 1983 is “personal, based upon each defendant’s own constitutional violations.” Trulock v. Freeh,
275 F.3d 391, 402(4th Cir. 2001). A proper claim requires factual details about a defendant’s personal involvement in the violation of a plaintiff’s rights. Wilcox v. Brown,
877 F.3d 161, 170(4th Cir. 2017). Neither the Department of Corrections nor the prisons are “persons” within the meaning of § 1983. Lail v. White,
978 F.2d 1255, n.4 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpublished) (citing Will v. Dep t of State Police,
491 U.S. 58(1989).). Insufficient information is given to identify Ardesia (Sgts) on 8-day shift, given that four entities, including three prisons, have been named as defendants. Therefore, the complaint herein is DISMISSED without prejudice, and this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket of this court. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff herein.
Enter: December 30, 2024 //s/ Robert S. Ballou Robert S. Ballou United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown