Beers v. NH State Prison, Warden et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Timothy Beers
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-968-LM
Warden, New Hampshire
State Prison, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Bernadette Campbell, the Deputy Director of
Medical at the New Hampshire State Prison (“NHSP”), has moved to
dismiss Claims 1(a) and 1(b) of plaintiff Timothy Beers’s
complaint – the only claims served against Campbell, see May 20,
2021 Order (Doc. No. 11, at 3-4) – under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failing to state a plausible claim for
relief. Her motion (Doc. No. 16) should be granted.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint
and the claims therein “must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). If, however, “the factual
allegations in the complaint are too meager, vague, or
conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from the realm of
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 32 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 3

2
mere conjecture, the complaint is open to dismissal.” 	S.E.C. v.
Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 442 (1st Cir. 2010).
With respect to Campbell, Beers’s complaint (Doc. No. 1),
as addended (Doc. No. 18), alleges only that Campbell is
“legally responsible” for the “medical treatment of inmates,”
the “health and safety of all inmates,” and “the investigations
of complaints from inmates about treatments, and her staff.”
Compl. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 6). 	Stripped of legal conclusions, these
allegations “are too meager, vague, or conclusory” to show that
Campbell is liable for the alleged deprivations of Beers’s
constitutional right to adequate medical care asserted in Claim
1(a) (failure to provide working hearing aids) or Claim 1(b)
(failure to provide prescribed medications). 	See Tambone, 597
F.3d at 442; May 20, 2021 R&R (Doc. No. 10, at 5-9) (discussing
Claims 1(a)-(d)).
“It is well-established that ‘only those individuals who
participated in the conduct that deprived the plaintiff of his
[or her] rights can be held liable.’” 	See Vélez-Rivera v.
Agosto-Alicea, 437 F.3d 145, 156 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting
Cepero-Rivera v. Fagundo, 414 F.3d 124, 129 (1st Cir. 2005)).
Beers’s complaint, even when liberally construed, does not
suggest that Campbell participated in the alleged deprivations
of his rights. 	Additionally, Beers’s allegations “fail to show
an affirmative link between the alleged abridgement of his
constitutional rights and some [supervisory] action or inaction”
by Campbell, as required to sustain a claim based on Campbell’s
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 32 Filed 12/15/21 Page 2 of 3

3
supervisory role. 	See also May 20, 2021 R&R (Doc. No. 10, at
11-14) (recommending dismissal of Beers’s supervisor liability
claims).
Given these deficiencies, Beers’s addended allegations
cannot sustain Beers’s inadequate medical care claims against
Campbell in her individual or her official capacities. 	The
district judge should therefore grant Campbell’s motion and
dismiss all claims against her in their entirety.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant
Campbell’s motion and dismiss all claims served on her in their
entirety. 	Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be
extended upon motion. 	Failure to file objections within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
_______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
December 15, 2021
cc: 	Timothy C. Beers, pro se
Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin, Esq.
Stephen J. Soule, Esq.
Case 1:20-cv-00968-LM Document 32 Filed 12/15/21 Page 3 of 3