Tipton v. Page et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:25-cv-00389-FDW
KEITH MARK TIPTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
) AND ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW
)
SAMUEL PAGE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
[Doc. 7], filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 2, 5].
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Keith Mark Tipton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 4, 2025,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Graham County Sheriff’s Office and Samuel
Page, Jeffrey Oswalt, Bryan Carpenter, and Dylan Taylor, all identified as officials with the
Sheriff’s Office. [Doc. 1]. In his Complaint, Plaintiff appeared to take issue with various aspects
of his arrest and criminal proceedings in Graham County, North Carolina, between August and
November 2022. [See id.]. Plaintiff’s Complaint failed initial review because his allegations were
“so meandering and nonsensical that they fail to satisfy the most basic pleading requirements.”
[Doc. 6 at 3 (citations omitted)]. The Court admonished Plaintiff that it would “not scour and
piece apart Plaintiff’s rambling stream-of-conscious pleading to state a claim for him.” [Id.]. The
Court also admonished Plaintiff that it appeared that some or all his claims may be barred by the
statute of limitations. [Id.]. The Court, nonetheless, allowed Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 8 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
properly state a claim for relief. [Id.]. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if he amends his
Complaint, “he should succinctly and clearly allege the factual basis for each claim against each
Defendant and which constitutional right(s) he contends were violated by which conduct.” [Id.].
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s 36-page Amended Complaint in which he again names
Page, Oswalt, Taylor and Carpenter and also now names Graham County and Alexander Parrish,
identified as a Graham County Sheriff’s Deputy, as Defendants. [Doc. 7]. He purports to sue all
Defendants in their individual and official capacities. [Id. at 1-3].
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is an even more meandering, nonsensical and stream-of-
conscious than his original Complaint. [See Doc. 7; cf. Doc. 1]. Plaintiff’s allegations, which
center on events allegedly occurring in August and September 2022, are not amenable to
meaningful summary here. [See Doc. 7 at 4-8, 12, 17]. Of note, however, Plaintiff does allege as
follows:
I also believe I suffered a stroke in Jail, Due to stress of Bogus
charges, constant hunger being starved, No sleep much Due to
thyroid disease and because the Jail [illegible] Jeff Oswalt didn’t fill
my synthroid or levothyroxine meds that the Doctor prescribed to
me and my anti-stroke and Heart Attack med ATORVASTIN. The
ambulance was called in for it either Oct 22 or Nov 22.
[Id. at 19 (errors uncorrected)].
Plaintiff claims violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 17 of the
“Declaration of Human Rights.” [Id. at 3]. Plaintiff alleges having suffered various physical
injuries during his August 2022, arrest, as well as a stroke while in jail. [Id. at 28]. Plaintiff seeks
monetary and injunctive relief. [See id. at 21-23].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must review the Complaint to
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 8 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or]
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Furthermore, under
§ 1915A the Court must conduct an initial review and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any
portion of the complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an
indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as
fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989). Furthermore,
a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district court to ignore a clear
failure to allege facts in his Complaint which set forth a claim that is cognizable under federal law.
Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
IV. DISCUSSION
To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a right secured
by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed
by a “person” acting under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (1999); Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. v. Talevski, 599 U.S.
166, 143 S.Ct. 1444 (2023).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also fails initial review. Plaintiff’s allegations are even
more meandering and nonsensical than his original Complaint and Plaintiff failed to amend his
Complaint in accordance with the Court’s Order. [See Doc. 6 at 3]. That is, contrary to the Court’s
express admonishment, Plaintiff did not “succinctly and clearly allege the factual basis for each
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 8 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
claim against each Defendant and which constitutional right(s) he contends were violated by which
conduct.” [See id.]. Rather, Plaintiff submitted another “rambling, stream-of-conscious” pleading
the Court admonished would fail. [See id.]. Additionally, as before, the bulk of any putative
claims Plaintiff purports to set out are based on events alleged to have occurred in August and
September 2022, which are barred by the statute of limitations in any event.
To be sure, however, Plaintiff does allege that he “believe[s]” he suffered a stroke in
October or November 2022 in part because of Defendant Oswalt’s alleged failure to give Plaintiff
certain medication. A pretrial detainee’s claim based on deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need is properly brought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Short v. Hartman, 87
F.4th 593, 611 (4th Cir. 2023). To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege that:
(1) they had a medical condition or injury that posed a substantial
risk of serious harm; (2) the defendant intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly acted or failed to act to appropriately address the risk that
the condition posed; (3) the defendant knew or should have known
(a) that the detainee had the condition and (b) that the defendant's
action or inaction posed an unjustifiably high risk of harm; and (4)
as a result, the detainee was harmed.
Id. at 611. Under this standard, “the plaintiff [need not] show that the defendant had actual
knowledge of the detainee’s serious medical condition and consciously disregarded the risk that
their action or failure to act would result in harm.” Id. “[I]t is enough that the plaintiff show that
the defendant acted or failed to act ‘in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either
known or so obvious that it should be known.’” Id. (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
836, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994)). It remains, however, insufficient “for the plaintiff to allege that the
defendant negligently or accidentally failed to do right by the detainee.” Id. at 611-12.
Giving the Plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference and taking his allegations are
true, he has nonetheless failed to state a claim against Defendant Oswalt based on the alleged
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 8 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
failure to give Plaintiff his medications. That is, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing he had
a medical condition posing a substantial risk of serious harm, that Defendant Oswalt intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly failed to act to address the risk that such condition posed, or that
Defendant Oswalt knew or should have known that his inaction posted an unjustifiably high risk
of harm. At best, Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that Defendant Oswalt may have accidentally or
negligently failed to give Plaintiff his medications. This claim, therefore, would have failed initial
review in any event.
Because Plaintiff failed to amend his Complaint in accordance with the Court’s Order and
has otherwise properly failed to state a claim for relief, the Court will dismiss this action with
prejudice. See Green v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 790 Fed. App’x 535, 536 (4th Cir. 2020).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with
prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. 7] is
DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the terms of this Order for Plaintiff’s failure to
state a claim for relief.
The Clerk is respectfully instructed to terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 12, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00389-FDW Document 8 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 5