Onley v. Nurse Katrina et al, No. 8:2015cv00595 - Document 36 (D. Md. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/14/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 12/14/15)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Onley v. Nurse Katrina et al Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAI'iD SOllthern DiI'i~;(l1I ....• :;:, -< I * TIRAYONLEY, * . ~ Plaintiff, .r:: :;r.o » t:J-'1 en r.; -..; * -J 0 u;C ...•. ::o~ -0 n-fU>"TJ o-f_ "'~r :l:nfT1 ;t>-fO ::on -<0 ,-c ;t>::O z ....• 0 * Defendants. * = ,." n ...,U> :-:;; \'. * ::>P -f,." e>::O :=<>O>; ,." . Case No.: G.IH-J;;i-$lJ~ ._ -it * WEXFORD ilEAL TH SOURCES, INC., et aI., ~ •..•.• * * * * * * * * * * * * '* MEMORANDUM OPINION Tiray Onley has tiled a civil rights complaint unspecifIed money damages employees. and !cHlr Maryland reprcsented prisoner Maryland shoulder. ("DOC') Correctional and referral to a specialist * 1983. sceking Inc. ("WexlcJr(j"'). two or its employees. Onley. a sclt~ Training Center in Ilagerstown. allegcs that (I) prison health carc providcrs resume a work dctail. and (2) corrcctions medical clearance. Health Sources. Division or Correction housed at the Maryland ("MeTC"). follow up treatment against Wexrord under 42 U.S.c. railed to provide appropriatc to treat a scrious injury berore clcaring him to pcrsonnel scnt him oul on a work detail without As a result. Onley claims he has sustained additional injury to his right ECF NO.1 a13. Pending is an unopposed I Motion 10 Dismiss filed by counscl Ic)r Dercndant (ECF No. 16). No hearing is needed to resolve the issues raised in the Complaint. 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the Ic}lIowing reasons. the dispositive Wexfont" SI!I! Local Rule motion will be GRANTED. I Pursuant to the dictates of RO.'lf!horo \', Garrison. 528 F.2d 309 Hth Cir. 1(75). the Clerk OfCOl1l1 011 June 20. 2015, infonncd Plaintiff that Defendant Wexford tiled a dispositive motion. that Plaintitl" had seventeen days in Dockets.Justia.com '''The purpose ofa Rule 12(b)(6) motion [to dismiss] is to test the sufficiency ofa complaint. ... McBumey \".Cuccinelli. 616 r.3d 393. 408 (4th Cir. 20 I0) (citation omitted). A Rule 12(b)( 6) motion constitutes an assertion by the Defendant that. even if the filcts that plaintiff alleges are true. the complaint fails. as a matter of law... to state a claim upon which relief can be granted:' Fed R. Civ. 1'. 12(b)(6). Therefore. in considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). a court must accept as true the well-pled facts in the complaint and vie\\' them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Brockinglon \'. Boykins. 637 r.3d 503. 505 (4th Cir. 2011). Defendant Wexford argues that the Complaint should bc dismissed against it because as a corporate entity it cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 solely undcr a respondcat superior theory. ECF No. 16-1 at 2-3. The Court agrecs. See Clork \" .lId. Dep'l of1'uh. So{2/)' . ondCorr. Sen's .. 316 F. App'x. 279. 282 (4th Cir. 2(09): Aus/in \'. Pal"{/lI1oulI/ arks. Inc. 195 P r.3d 715, 727-28 (4th Cir. 1999): Powell,'. SllOPCO Laurel Co.. 678 r.2d 504. 506 (4th Cir. * 1983. liability is imposed on any pcrson who shall subject. or cause to bc any person to the deprivation of any rights. 42 U.S.c. * 1983. The statute requires a 1982). Under subjected. showing of personal lault. whether based upon the Defendant's own conduct or another's conduct in executing the Defendant's policies or customs. See Monell \'. No rc. Dep'l o{Social Sen's., 436 U.S. 658,690 (1978): wesl\". AIkins. 815 F.2d 993. 996 (4th Cir. 1(87). re,,'d on olher grounds. 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (no allegation ofpcrsonal involvcment relevant to thc claimcd deprivation): Vinnedge \".Gihhs. 550 F.2d 926. 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (explaining that in ordcr lill" tile written opposition to the Illotion. and that ifPlaintifffail~d to respond. claims against Wexford could be dismissed without further notice. See ECF No. 12. PlaintilThas chosen not to respond. The Dclendants' Illotion shall be granted on this basis as well as 011 the merits. which to :.? The correctional Defendants' response to the Complaint is due on October 21. 2015. The individual health care providers have not been served. 2 an individual Defendant to be held liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. * 1983. it must bc "aflirmatively shown that the oflicial charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plailltilTs rights .. :"). For these reasons. the unopposed Motion to Dismiss tiled on behal f of Wcxlllrd is GRANTED in a separate Order. Dated: December I'l L/< - .2015 GEORGE .I. HAZEL United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
