LEO I. BRISBOIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a referral for report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.1, and upon Defendants Lieutenant Gravdal, Captain Lee, Correctional Officer J. Hanson, and Correctional Officer Weber's joint Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28].
For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], be
Plaintiff Jamar D. Henry is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. (Boldt Dec., [Docket No. 30], 1). From June 19, 2012, to August 17, 2016, however, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. (
Plaintiff initiated the present case by filing his Complaint in this Court on March 14, 2017. [Docket No. 1]. On April 14, 2017, in accordance with this Court's direction, Plaintiff filed the operative Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 5]. He named as Defendants Lieutenant Gravdal, Captain Lee, Correctional Officer J. Hanson, and Correctional Officer Weber. (
On November 13, 2017, Defendants filed the joint Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], which is presently before the Court. Therein, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing the present lawsuit. (Mem. in Supp., [Docket No. 29], 1). In the alternative, Defendants contend that to the extent that Plaintiff brings claims against them in their official capacities, such claims must be dismissed because Defendants enjoy sovereign immunity. (
On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Response to Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss. [Docket No. 35]. Plaintiff asserts that he exhausted his administrative remedies as required, that he adequately pled Defendant Lee's personal involvement, and that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. (
On December 15, 2017, Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiff's Response. [Docket No. 37]. Defendants largely dedicated their Reply to addressing Plaintiff's arguments regarding Defendant Lee's personal involvement. (
On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply/Surreply. [Docket No. 41]. Considering its duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally and the fact that Plaintiff's Motion contained his surreply argument, the undersigned granted the Motion and accepted it as Plaintiff's Surreply. (Order, [Docket No. 43], 2). Plaintiff's Surreply consists of certain medical records Plaintiff wishes the Court to consider in determining whether to grant the pending Motion to Dismiss. (
As already set forth above, Defendants make multiple arguments as to why the Court should dismiss the present case. However, the undersigned need not review all of those arguments or address their merits, as there is a more direct path to resolution of the present Motion.
It is well-established that "in order to sue a public official in his or her individual capacity, a plaintiff must expressly and unambiguously state so in the pleadings, otherwise, it will be assumed that the defendant is sued only in his or her official capacity."
In the present case, in both his initial Complaint and his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff did
As already set forth above, Plaintiff has conceded that his claims against Defendants in their official capacities must be dismissed. (Response, [Docket No. 35], 2). Specifically, Plaintiff stated: "Henry agrees with the legal contention raised by the Defendants asserting that there is no basis for the imposition of liability upon the Defendants for acts or omissions in their official capacity." (
Accordingly, because the only claims pled in the Initial and Amended Complaints were brought against Defendants only in their official capacities and Plaintiff concedes that any and all claims brought against Defendants in their official capacities should be dismissed, the undersigned recommends that Defendants' joint Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], be
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein,