Arthur H. Wimberly v. Livy Leavell, Jr., 110 F.3d 66 (6th Cir. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Arthur H. Wimberly v. Livy Leavell, Jr., 110 F.3d 66 (6th Cir. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ralph Moore, Jr. v. City of Harriman Harriman Police Department Roy Jenkins, Chief of Police, Harriman Police Department Darren McBroom Terry Fink Randy Heidle Virgil McCart Jerry Singleton (ca6, 2001-11-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ralph Moore, Jr. v. City of Harriman Harriman Police Department Roy Jenkins, Chief of Police, Harriman Police Department Darren McBroom Terry Fink Randy Heidle Virgil McCart Jerry Singleton
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Sumner, 166 F.3d 1213 , 1998 WL 786979 , at *1 (6th Cir. 1998) (same); Fennell v. Simmons, 162 F.3d 1161 , 1998 WL 552830 , at *2-3 (6th Cir. 1998) (Nelson, J.,) (dismissing appeal on jurisdictional grounds because the complaint failed to clearly set forth that the plaintiff was suing the state defendants in their individual capacities; citing Wells); Young v. Ward, 149 F.3d 1185 , 1998 WL 384564 , at *1 (6th Cir. 1998) (order) (affirming grant of summary judgment, noting that the plaintiff did not specify the capacity that he was suing the defendants in their individual capacities, and under …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. City of Harriman
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
LEXIS 3932, at *3 (6th Cir.2001) (order) (because complaint did not indicate that the defendants were being sued personally, court assumed that they were sued in their official capacity as state employees; citing Wells), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 54 , - L.Ed.2d - (2001) (No. 00-1823); Jasman v. Schmidt, 248 F.3d 1149 , 2001 WL 128430 , at *1 (6th Cir.2001) (affirming district court’s holding that defendants were immune from monetary damages because the plaintiff failed to allege capacity; citing Wells); Lillie v. Egelhoff, 238 F.3d 422 , 2000 WL 1829015 , at *1 (6th Cir.2000) (orde…
discussed Cited "see" Stein v. Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund, Inc.
W.D. Tenn. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. Craigie, 110 F.3d 66 , *1 (6th Cir.1997); Johnson v. City of Houston, 444 Fed.Appx. 26, 30-31 (5th Cir.2011); D-Beam v. Roller Derby Skate Corp., 316 Fed.Appx. 966, 969 (Fed.Cir.2008); Creely v. Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., 184 Fed.Appx. 197, 201 (3d Cir.2006); John Street Leasehold, LLC v. Capital Mgmt.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robert Young v. Campbell Cnty., Ky. (2×)
6th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ky.Rev.Stat. §§ 67.080(2)(d), 67.083(3)(e); see also Johnson v. Hardin County, 908 F.2d 1280, 1287 (6th Cir. 1990) (“State law contemplates that the authority to promulgate policies for the care of prisoners is not vested in the jailer, but in the fiscal court.”); see also Wimberly v. Leavell, 110 F.3d 66 , 1997 WL 135578, at *1 (6th Cir. 1997) (unpublished table order).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur H. Wimberly
v.
Livy Leavell, Jr.
96-5593.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Mar 24, 1997.
110 F.3d 66
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Unpublished

110 F.3d 66

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Arthur H. WIMBERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Livy LEAVELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-5593.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 24, 1997.

Before: JONES, SUHRHEINRICH, and SILER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Arthur H. Wimberly, a pro se Kentucky prisoner, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his prisoner civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

2

Seeking monetary relief, Wimberly sued the jailer of the Christian County, Kentucky jail without specifying the capacity in which he sued the defendant. Wimberly asserted that the defendant subjected to him to cruel and unusual punishment by delaying medical treatment and by providing inadequate medical treatment. Upon review of the defendant's motion, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

3

In his timely appeal, Wimberly reasserts his same claims.

4

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); accord Harrow Prods., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 64 F.3d 1015, 1019 (6th Cir.1995).

5

Wimberly did not specify the capacity in which he sued the defendant, and thus, the defendant is deemed to be sued in his official capacity only. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 593 (6th Cir.1989). In an official capacity suit against a local governmental official, the real party in interest is not the named official, but the local governmental entity. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). However, only an official with final policy-making authority can subject the government to § 1983 liability. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123 (1988). The governmental entity will only be held liable for monetary damages if its policy or custom directly caused the alleged constitutional violation. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Deaton v. Montgomery County, Ohio, 989 F.2d 885, 889 (6th Cir.1993).

6

A Kentucky jailer does not have final policy-making authority sufficient to subject the government to § 1983 liability. Johnson v. Hardin County, Ky., 908 F.2d 1280, 1287 (6th Cir.1990). Instead, the governmental entity with final policy-making authority on the provision of medical care appears to be the fiscal court of the county. Id. Wimberly made no allegations whatsoever about the actions of anyone on the fiscal court. He did not contend that the fiscal court or any other governmental entity promulgated any policies on medical care resulting in the purported constitutional violations. Wimberly likewise did not contend that the delayed and inadequate treatment he allegedly experienced was part of a widespread practice so permanent and well-settled as to be a custom with the force of law. See Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact exists as Wimberly did not show the alleged constitutional violations were the result of any governmental policy or custom.

7

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.