Marion Sherrod v. Sid Harkleroad

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999911606-2]. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00048-RJC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999996301]. Mailed to: Marion L. Sherrod. [16-7045]

Appeal: 16-7045

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7045

MARION LAMONT SHERROD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SID HARKLEROAD, Superintendent at North Carolina Department
of Corr.; EDWARDS; STEPHEN SHOOK, Stg. Officer at North
Carolina Department of Corr.; PATRICIA MCENTIRE, E-Unit
Manager at North Carolina Dept. of Correction; MARGARET
JOHNSON, Nurse at North Carolina Department of Corr.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN MORGAN, Medical Provider at North Carolina Department
of Corr.; LARRY BASS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-00048-RJC)

Submitted:

November 30, 2016

Decided:

January 3, 2017

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-7045

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Marion L. Sherrod, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7045

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Marion Lamont Sherrod, a North Carolina inmate, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint in the district court alleging
claims

against

various

North

Carolina

prison

Defendants.

Sherrod’s primary claim was that, despite notice to Defendants
that he suffered from seizures, he was housed in an upstairs
cell in a top bunk and, as a result, he fell, seriously injuring
himself; he alleged this was evidence of an Eighth Amendment
violation
needs.

and

deliberate

indifference

to

his

serious

medical

The district court granted the Defendants’ motion for

judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), finding
that Sherrod’s complaint failed because he simply assumed in his
complaint, without sufficient factual support, that all of the
Defendants had intimate knowledge about his seizure disorder.
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

we

vacate

the

district

court’s

judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
We review a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(c) de
novo, applying the same standard we would to a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Volvo Constr.

Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., 386 F.3d 581, 591 (4th
Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we assume all facts alleged are true

and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff to
determine

whether

the

complaint
3

alleges

a

set

of

facts

Appeal: 16-7045

Doc: 13

Filed: 01/03/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

sufficient to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Attached

to

Sherrod’s

related exhibits.

complaint

were

a

declaration

and

In his properly executed declaration, Sherrod

alleged that medical provider John Morgan and manager Patricia
McEntire, both named Defendants, had knowledge of his seizure
disorder but failed to accommodate his disability, leading to
his serious injuries due to a fall.
whether

Sherrod

ultimately

may

We make no finding as to

prove

an

Eighth

Amendment

violation against the Defendants, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 105-106 (1976); Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 238-39
(4th Cir. 2008), but find that he alleged enough to survive the
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
we

vacate

opinion.

and

remand

for

proceedings

Accordingly,

consistent

with

this

We deny Sherrod’s motion for appointment of counsel

and dispense
contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

4