Davis v. Union Memorial Imaging et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 5/5/2015. (c/m 5/6/2015)(ko, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ARNOLD MATTHEW DAVIS,
Plaintiff

*
*

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. JKB-15-1112
*

UNION MEMORIAL IMAGING, et al.,
Defendant

*
******

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Arnold Matthew Davis, who is self-represented, has filed a civil rights case
against Union Memorial Imaging and Andrew Robert Tyser, M.D., a hand surgeon, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. ' 1983. ECF 1. Plaintiff appears to be indigent and his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis shall be granted. See ECF 2. Upon review of the complaint, however, it shall be
dismissed under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319
(1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310
(4th Cir. 1996); Nasim v. Warden, 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff alleges that defendants, private medical providers, were negligent in handling his
medical care and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. ECF 1. He indicates that
after Dr. Tyser operated on plaintiff’s hand he was to return for follow-up care but defendants
cancelled the appointments requiring plaintiff to remove the cast, dressing, and stitches himself.
Id., p. 4. He further alleges that Dr. Tyser performed medical procedures outside the scope of
what plaintiff consented to. Id., p. 5. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. Id., p. 9.
To state a claim under ' 1983, two elements are essential: (1) that plaintiff suffered a
deprivation of "rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the

1

United States; and (2) the act or omission causing the deprivation was committed by a person
acting under color of law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Private medical providers are
not state actors and plaintiff’s complaint alleging medical malpractice cannot proceed against the
named defendants as a civil rights action. He is free to pursue whatever state court remedies may
be available to him for the alleged negligent conduct of defendants.
A separate Order shall be entered reflecting the ruling set forth herein.

May 5, 2015
Date

_____________/s/______________________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

2