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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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 . Mailed to: Marion L. Sherrod. [16-7045]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MARION LAMONT SHERROD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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,
JOHN MORGAN, Medical Provider at North Carolina Department
of Corr.; LARRY BASS,
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)
November 30, 2016
January 3, 2017
Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pg: 2 of 4
Marion L. Sherrod, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 4
Marion Lamont Sherrod, a North Carolina inmate, filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint in the district court alleging
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
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.
judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
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.
Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., 386 F.3d 581, 591 (4th
Accordingly, we assume all facts alleged are true
and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff to
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).
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.
We make no finding as to
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 deny Sherrod’s motion for appointment of counsel
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
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?