Marion Sherrod v. Sid Harkleroad


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7045 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7045 MARION LAMONT SHERROD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SID HARKLEROAD, Superintendent at North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 Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-7045 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/03/2017 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Marion Lamont Sherrod, a North Carolina inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?