UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7052
WILLIAM LEE BRADSHAW,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MR. HARDEN, Lt.; MR. BURKE, Sgt.,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00225-gec-mfu)
Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Bradshaw, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Lee Bradshaw appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006).
The complaint alleged that defendants, supervisory
officials at Augusta Correctional Center, violated Bradshaw’s
rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from
assault by other inmates. According to the complaint, a prison
official issued Bradshaw cleaning supplies, including a long-
handled mop and a long-handled broom, in violation of written
prison policy authorizing only inmates designated as “housemen”
to possess such supplies without supervision. Bradshaw alleged
that the cleaning supplies were subsequently used by two inmates
to assault him.
The individual officer alleged to have violated the
cleaning-supplies policy was not named in Bradshaw’s complaint.
Instead, those named as defendants have supervisory roles at the
prison and Bradshaw alleges that they violated his rights by
failing to enforce the cleaning-supplies policy. However, as
noted by the district court, Bradshaw does not allege any facts
that would have put defendants on notice that the policy was
being violated. As such, Bradshaw cannot show that the
supervisors demonstrated deliberate indifference to, or tacit
2
authorization of, the conduct of their subordinates.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing
Bradshaw’s complaint insofar as it relied on a theory of
supervisory liability. See Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372-
73 (4th Cir. 1984).
Bradshaw also alleged that defendants violated his
rights by failing to protect him when his assailants were
released back into the general prison population. Again,
however, there was no indication that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to a potential risk of harm to
Bradshaw. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-37 (1994).
Indeed, Bradshaw failed to indicate that such a risk existed.
Notably, after Bradshaw was treated for the injuries resulting
from the assault, but before he was released to the general
population, he signed a form indicating that he did not fear for
his safety in the general population. Also, there was no
evidence indicating that the two inmates who assaulted Bradshaw
threatened or harmed him in any way after their return to the
general prison population. We are disinclined to hold that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk of which they
were unaware.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district
court to dismiss Bradshaw’s complaint. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4