UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7774
PORFIRO R. BARNES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN S. K. YOUNG; A. W. MEEK, Asst Warden; E. J. EATON,
Unit Manager/Bldg A-1; JERALD HOPKINS, Facility Doctor; S.
YATES, RNCB Head Nurse; A. OSBORNE, Pill Nurse; DIRECTOR
FRED SCHILLING, Health Services Director-VA DOC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cv-00067-NKM-RSB)
Submitted: March 31, 2014 Decided: April 10, 2014
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Porfiro R. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;
Mary Foil Russell, HALE, LYLE & RUSSELL, PC, Bristol, Tennessee,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Porfiro R. Barnes appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2006) claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs and his claims that Defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2006), and the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2012). We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error with regard to Barnes’
§ 1983 and Rehabilitation Act claims. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Barnes v. Young,
No. 7:12-cv-00067-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2013).
With regard to Barnes’ ADA claims, we note that “Title
II of the ADA . . . [does not] provide[] for individual capacity
suits against state officials.” Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health
Sciences Ctr., 280 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2001) (collecting
cases). As a result, such a suit may only be brought against a
defendant in an official capacity. “[A] suit against a state
official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against
the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office.
As such, it is no different from a suit against the State
itself.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71
(1989) (internal citation omitted). Under the Eleventh
Amendment, States are immunized from suits brought in federal
court, absent a waiver from the State or a clear,
2
constitutionally permissible Congressional exercise of its power
under the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 66. The ADA creates
an exception to this prohibition, however, where the ADA
violations at issue also violate the Fourteenth Amendment. See
United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 153, 159 (2006).
Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment
on Barnes’ § 1983 claims, we conclude that Barnes’ ADA claims
are barred.
We deny Barnes’ motion to appoint counsel and dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3