Source: http://wv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180313_0000289.SWV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:49:45+00:00

Document:
JOE DELONG, et al., Defendants.
Pending before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Joe DeLong and Steven Crook. (ECF No. 76.) By Standing Order entered on April 8, 2013, and filed in this case on June 19, 2013, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition. (ECF No. 3.) The Court VACATES the order filed on June 19, 2013, (ECF No. 3), designating Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendation. The undersigned will now proceed to consider the case.
The Court previously dismissed the claims against the PrimeCare Medical defendants and Correctional Officer Hunter. (ECF No. 7; ECF No. 72.) Thus, the only claims still before the Court are Plaintiff Albert William Lacy's (“Lacy”) Fourteenth Amendment claims against unidentified correctional officers who allegedly failed to intervene in the alleged assaults described in the Complaint, and his supervisory liability claims against Joe DeLong, the former Executive Director of the West Virginia Regional Jail & Correctional Facility Authority (“WVRJCFA”), and Steven Crook, the former Administrator of the South Central Regional Jail (“SCRJ”), where Lacy's claims arose.
Lacy further alleges that other correctional officers observed these assaults and had the opportunity to intervene to stop the same, but failed to do so. However, Lacy is unable to identify any of those individuals. (Id. at 22-23 [Lacy Dep. pp. 47-48].) Finally, Lacy alleges that Defendants Joe DeLong and Steve Crook, as the former supervisors of these correctional officers, should be held liable for the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates because the jail was overcrowded and staffed by improperly trained correctional officers.
Discovery in this matter concluded on January 15, 2018. On January 25, 2018, Defendants DeLong and Crook filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 76), and a Memorandum of Law in support thereof, (ECF No. 77). On February 5, 2018, Lacy filed a Motion in Opposition of Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 78.) The Defendants did not file a reply brief. The motion documents will be further addressed in detail infra.
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense - or the part of each claim or defense - on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (2010). Material facts are those necessary to establish the elements of a party's cause of action. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Summary judgment is required when a party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish an essential element of a claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The moving party has the burden of establishing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's claim. Id. at 322-23. Once the moving party demonstrates such a lack of evidence, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and make a sufficient showing of facts presenting a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 325; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). Accordingly, summary judgment will generally be granted unless a reasonable jury could render a verdict for the non-moving party on the evidence presented. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48.
A court must not resolve disputed facts or weigh the evidence, and may not make determinations of credibility. Russell v. Microdyne Corp., 65 F.3d 1229, 1239 (4th Cir. 1995); Sosebee v. Murphy, 797 F.2d 179, 182 (4th Cir. 1986). Rather, the party opposing the motion is entitled to have his or her version of the facts accepted as true and to have all internal conflicts resolved in his or her favor. Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d 406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979). Inferences that are “drawn from the underlying facts . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). However, the party opposing the motion may not rely upon mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Sprenkle v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 84 F.Supp.2d 751 (N.D. W.Va. 2000).
It is well-established that a government official cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely on the basis of respondeat superior.” See, e.g., Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Nonetheless, “[t]he principle is firmly entrenched that supervisory officials may be held liable in certain circumstances for the constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates.” Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1994). In such circumstances, liability is based not on respondeat superior, but upon “a recognition that supervisory indifference or tacit authorization of subordinates' misconduct may be a causative factor in the constitutional injuries they inflict on those committed to their care.” Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir. 1984) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 632 F.2d 1096, 1101 (4th Cir. 1980)).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.