Maziaz v. Corinzon, Inc. et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/14/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 3/14/16)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTIJ.S. OISff\ICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MARYLAND
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern

Division

lGlb MAR Ilt P I: 20
*
DONALD

CLERK'S OFFICE
A1 GRE[H2~:~T

MAZIARZ,

*

BY

Plaintiff,

i~C!;J

y

*
v.

Case No.: G.IH-I.t-3615

*
CORIZON,

INC.,

et al.,
*

Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Currently
Dr. Andrew
Wexford

*

*

*

pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss tiled on behal I' of defendants

Moultrie.

Dr. Syed Rizvi. John Moss. Lashauna Grier. Emanuel

Health Sourees.

Ine. (the "Wexford

defendants").

has responded.

pending

is a Motion to Dismiss. or in the Alternative.

behalf of defendants

Corizon.

or in the Alternative.

Defendant

Motion for Summary

have replied. ECF No. 38. Also

Motion for Summary

Ine .. John Moss. Andrew Moultrie.

ECF No. 52. Correctional

Esianor. and

ECF No. 29.1 Plaintiff Donald

ECF No. 35. and the Wexford defendants

Roman. and Erie Booker} (the "Corizon

responded.

*

OPINION

Maziarz

Miehael

*

defendants").

Judgment

tiled on

Damon Fayell. Julianne Jenny."

ECF No. 42. Maziarz has

John Wolfe has also tiled a Motion to Dismiss.

Judgment.

ECr: No. 46. to which Maziarz has not

I Some of tile individual defendants have dual representation
in this matter. as on June 30.1012. COriZOll, Inc:s
contract as health care provider to Division of Correction ("DOC) inmates ended. and on July 31. 2012. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc."s contract began providing services to DOC inmates as the hcallh care contractor.
2

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the correct name of defendant.

3

The Clerk shall amend the docket to rencet the correct name of defendant.

responded.4
Upon review of papers and exhibits

See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below. thc dispositive

unnecessary.
motions

liled. the court finds an oral hearing in this matter

filed by the Corizon delendants

and Warden Wolle will be granted and the dispositivc

motion filed by the Wexford defendants

shall bc grantcd in part and denicd in part for reasons

stated herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Maziarz's Contentions

On November
Institution

17. 2014. Plaintill

('"JCI"). filed a self-representcd

who is incarcerated

at the Jcssup Corrcctional

civil rights complaint

Inc. and

Wexford

Health Sources.

adequate

medical care for his cervical spine injury. ECF No. I at 4. He claims that he was not

provided

visits or ordered MRls because JCI Medical Department

work together to coordinate
treatment

Inc .. alleging that beginning

against Corizon.

and its supervisors

failed to

his medical care. He states that he received only partial medical

and has been leli disabled due to lack of follow up. lei.

On January 7, 2015, Maziarz
Warden John Wolfe,; Corizon.
Moultrie,

in 20 I0 he has bccn dcnied constitutionally

liled a court-dirccted

Inc .. Wexford

Amcnded

Health Sourccs.

M.D., Syed Rizvi. M.D .. Ms. Jenny. Lashauna

Complaint.

naming JCI

Inc .. Damon Fayel!. M.D .. Andrcw

Grier. Michael Romain.

I'.A .. John

4Pursuant to the dictates of Rosehoro \'. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309. 310 (4th Cir. 1975). on August 10. 2015. Maziarz
was notified that Wolfe had filed a dispositive motion, the granting of which could result in the dismissal of his
action. ECF NO.4 7. He was also informed that he was entitled to tile materials in opposition to that motion within
seventeen (t 7) days from the date orlhat leller and that his failure to tile a timely or responsive pleading or to
illustrate. by affidavit or the like. a genuine dispute of material fact. could result in the dismissal of his case or in the
entry of summary judgment without further notice of the court. ItI. Plaintiff sought and was granted extensions of
time to and including February 15,2016. 10 lile any opposition. ECF No. 60. 62 & 64.
Plaintiff indicates that Warden Wolfe is directly responsible
5.

5

2

for the care and welfare of inmates housed at JCI. lei. at

Moss, P.A., Radiologist Eric, and Emanuel Esianor. !'.A.. as defendants. alleging he has been
denied constitutionally adequate medical care. ECF NO.5.
Maziarz indicates that in in January 01'2010. he was evaluated due to complaints of
ongoing muscle contractions in his neck, leg, arms and hands. ECF NO.5 at 8. He timher
indicates that from 2010-2012 he was evaluated by various prison medical providers and outside
specialists, culminating in surgery performed on February 29. 2012. !d. at 9.
On March 5, 2012. Maziarz was discharged from the prison infirmary back to a cell.
Despite orders that he not be housed in a double bunk cell. because of stiches and metal plates in
his neck, he was placed in a double bunk cell and forced to sleep on the noor. 1£1. at 10. He states
that he notified correctional staff that he could not be housed in a double bunk cell but they told
him that in order for his cell assignment to be altered "medical hard] to do it." Id. After
complaining for six days. the supervisor removed Maziarz's cell buddy. but correctional staff
could not do anything else "because they wouldn't give [him] the proper papers work [sicj so [he
could] be relocated into a single bunk cell." Id.
After his surgery, Maziarz continued to have difticulty obtaining the necessary paper work
to obtain a single cell. He also details difficulty in being scheduled for an MRI. and accessing a
physician rather than a physician's assistant for follow-up care. Id. at 1-12. Maziarz indicates that
since September 19. 2012, he has requested an order liJr single cell status but nothing has been
done. Id. He indicates that in September 2012 the surgeon directed he return in a month for follow
up. but he was never returned to the University Hospital Medical Center Neurosurgeon Clinic.6
Id. at 13. Throughout his Amended Complaint. Maziarz details his efforts to secure single cell

Maziarz indicates.
2012 fora CT/MRI

6

however. that he was returned to the University of Maryland Medical Center on December 19.
''v.jthcontrast./d. at 13. He also indicates that on January 18.2013. he was sent to Bon Sccours

Hospital for a CT scan but at that time he was to receive an MRJ. He contends that ..they sent the wrong paperwork:'
Id. at 14.

status, a follow-up visit with the University neurosurgeon, and treatment for other ancillary
cervical spine problems. ECF NO.5. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as
injunctive relief directing that he receive permanent single bunk housing. physical therapy. and
proper care. Id. at 19.7
B.

Corizon's Contentions

Corizon. Inc.. provided health care services to Maryland inmates Ii'om January 20 I0 until
June 30, 2012, when its contract with the State of Maryland was tenllinated.8 ECF No. 42.
Records provided by Corizon note that Maziarz suffers from hypertension. chronic low back pain.
as well as degenerative disc discase of the cerviCal spine. ECr- No. 42-1.
In early 20 I O. Maziarz received treatment for cervical spine pain. An x-ray taken on
January 13,2010. revealed reduced disc space and degenerative changes at C6-7.ld. at 5. A
neurology consultation was requested to evaluate Maziarz's symptoms of paresthesia. Id. at 6.
Wexford, the utilization management contractor. approved the oft:site consultation on February 3.
2010. Id. at 10.
Maziarz was examined at Bon Secours Neurology on March 4. 2010. Id. at 8-9. He was
diagnosed as suffering from likely cervical radiculopathy at C5-6. It was recommend that he
undergo an MRI of his cervical spine and. depending on the results. the need for physical therapy
or surgery would be further be explored. Id. at 9. The MRI. requested on March 5. 20 10 and
conducted on April 5. 2010. showed degenerative disk disease and spondylosis at C6-7. resulting

in mild compression of the spinal cord and minimal cord signal consistent with edema or
7 Maziarz has provided afTidavits from other inmates <l\'cITing that ill April. May. and August. of 20 12. the)' witnessed
him in pain. When it was suggested he go to medical. Maziarz responded that he did but had to wait "until they send
me back." ECF 18-1. When it was suggested he speak to the lieutenant. Maziarz responded that it was a medical
issue. ECF 18-2. On one occasion fellow inmate Danny Horton assisted Maziarz back to his housing unit. ECF 18.3.
8 While Corizon was the health care contractor, Wexford served as the utilization review manager. Id. Ex.. I at 10. At
the termination ofCorizon"s contrnct on June 30. 2012. Wex.ford became both the utilization review manager as \vell
as the health care contractor for the MaI)'land Division of Corrections.

4

myelomalacia and right greater than left neural foraminal stenosis at several upper cervical levels
due to bony overgrowth most prominent at C4-5. Id. at 16-18.20-21.25.
Maziarz was evaluated by a neurosurgeon on May 19. 20 IO. who found no weakness or
myelopathy or discrete dermatomal symptoms. The surgeon requested that Maziarz bring his MRI
so he could be definitively evaluated. The surgeon also recommended anti-inllammatories and
physical therapy. The surgeon !cHmdno need for urgent surgical intervention and recommended
"no double bed ifpossible:'/d.

at 31-33.

Maziarz's condition was monitored and he was provided pain medication. Id. at 38-39.
43,57,71.

He was provided additional cervical x-rays on June 17.2010 and December 8.2010.

The x-rays showed moderate disc height reduction at C6-7. and no acute fracture dislocation or
subluxation. Id. at 45. 64. Another cervical spine MRI was approved on December 30.20 IO. /d. at
66.
In2011, Maziarz was approved for surgery for the degenerative condition of his cervical
spine. Pre-operative laboratory work was begun in June of 20 II. Id. at 79-80. A note was entered
on July 20,2011, that the neurosurgeon had not received the lab work and that another MRI was
needed before the surgery. Id. at 82. It was also noted that the MRI was authorized and the
laboratory work would be done within two weeks of Maziarz's scheduled August 17.2011
appointment. !d. He was seen by the neurosurgeon on December 21.2011. and surgery was
recommended. Id. at 91 .
On February 28, 2012. Maziarz underwent an anterior cervical disk fusion at C6-7. ECF
No. I at 6. He was discharged from the hospital to the prison infirmary on March 2. 2012. ECF
No. 42-1 at 103-104. Maziarz's discharge instructions indicated he should wear a cervical collar
for four weeks. It was noted that he was walking without difticulty in the infimlary and in stable

5

condition. Id. at 103-08. He was discharged ti'OInthe inlim1ary to .ICI on March 5. 2012. with
instructions to continue wearing his cervical collar for three to four weeks and to follow up with
neurosurgery in six to eight weeks. Id. at 109-10.
On May 17,2012, Dr. Moultrie noted that Maziarz was seen for neurosurgery tallow up.
Moultrie discussed Maziarz's case with neurosurgery due to Maziarz's complaints ofleti side arm
and neck pain, along with pain and tingling radiating into the len ann and occasionally into the
lingers. Maziarz also reported occasional short pain in his len loot. The neurosurgeon found no
weakness on exam and the pain was not derrimtomal. Maziarz sought orders lor a permanent
single cell and heating pad from the neurosurgeon. Dr. Moultrie indicated he would inquire as to
whether a pillow could be provided and extended Maziarz's order for a single cell tor one month.
Moultrie indicated he would sec what the MRI and tallow up with the neurosurgeon indicated as
to the stability of Maziarz's neck. Id. at 119.
Approximately eight weeks aner Maziarz's surgery, an undated, unsigned, progress note
indicates that Maziarz continued to wear his cervical collar and refused to remove it.ld. at 34-35.
Maziarz sought renewal of the order that he be single celled and requested feed-in status. The
Medical Director discussed Maziarz's care with him and altempted to educate him regarding the
danger of wearing the cervical collar too long, e.g. an increased in sti f1i1essand increased muscle
weakness of the supporting muscles of the neck. Id. Maziarz refuscd to take off the collar. His
paperwork tor use of the collar, feed-in status, and single cell status were not renewed. It was
conlirrned that Maziarz was scheduled for tallow up with the neurosurgeon on May 16. 20 J2. Id.
at 35.
An MRJ of Maziarz's cervical spine was taken on .Iune 14,2012, revealing post anterior
cervical discectomy and fusion at C6-7. Minimal disc bulging at C4-5 level was noted, "touching

6

but not displacing or compressing the spinal cord:' Id. at 124-25. At C6-7 the "central canal is
grossly patient. [sic] Bilateral neural foraminal stenosis [was] suspected:' Id. at 123. Additionally.
it was noted that "[!]eli foraminal stenosis at C7-T1. not seen previously seen ... could be artif~lct
resulting from differences in the exact level scan. Correlation with CT is suggested to assess bony
detail:" Id.
Wexford assumed the primary medical services contract for the State of Maryland

011

July

1,2012. As such, Corizon provided no further treatment to Maziarz. ECr No. 42 at 9.
C.

\Vexford's

Contcntions

The Wexford defendants have provided no further medical records for Maziarz.
maintaining that Maziarz's complaint should be dismissed. imer alia. for failure to state a claim.
They indicate that Maziarz"s Amended Complaint itself reveals that he had numerous visits.
evaluations, and treatments by a number of healthcare providers over a live year period thus
belying his claim that he was denied medical care. ECF No. 29-1 at 3. Wexford defendants also
maintain that Maziarz has not asserted any claims against Dr. Rizvi. John Moss. Lashauna Grier.
or Emmanuel Esianor and his complaint must be dismissed as to these defendants. !d. Defendants
summarize Maziarz's allegations as to Dr. Moultrie as based on Dr. Moultrie's failure to
personally examine him on certain occasions while physicians assistants did: Dr. Moultrie's
failure to increase his blood pressure medicine: Dr. Moultrie's lailure to remove Maziarz's neck
brace; and Dr. Moultrie' s refusal to order Maziarz be placed in single bunk housing. hI. at 3-4.
D.

Warden Wolfc's Contentions

Warden Wolfe avers that he does not supervise medical personnel. ECF No. 46-2. ~ 3. He
states that his responsibilities are to act as the chief administrator of JCI. overseeing the
administration of personnel and programs in order to ensure the safe. efficient and lawful function

7

of JCI.

!d. Within the Maryland DOC. medical care for inmates is provided by private health cure

'1

Id .. 4. Wolfe avers that it is beyond the scope of his duties to perform any kind of

contractors.

medical treatment

or to prescribe

or deny a particular

course of treatment.

he has no authority to dictate the type of medical treatment
the medical decisions
in, interfered

avers that he is unaware

II.

STANDARD
A.

Motion

an inmate is to receive or to inlluence

of medical care to Maziarz. Id. ~ 5. Wolfe further

of any staff under his authority

medical care to Maziarz.

he states

Id. Wolfe avers that he has not been involved

of the health care contractors.

with. or delayed the provision

Additionally.

interfering

or delaying the provision

of

Id.. ,; 6.

OF REVIEW
to Dismiss

The purpose ofa motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is to test the
sufficiency

of the plaintiffs

complaint.

See Edll'ard" \'. Cify (lj'Go/dsboro.

Cir. 1999). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
statement

of the claim showing

relief

of Rule 8(a». A "plaintiffs

Migdal \'. ROll'e /'rice-

(4th Cir. 2001): see also SlI'iakiell'ic::

534 U.S. 506. 513 (2002) (stating that a complaint
standard"

requires only a "short and plain

that the pleader is entitled to reliee

Fleming Infl Inc .• 248 F.3d 321,325-26

obligation

to provide the "grounds'
and a formulaic

factual allegations"

complaint

need only state "enough

570. "A claim has lacial plausibility
to draw the reasonable

inference

of the clements
Nonetheless.

of a

the

is plausible on its lace," !<I.

pleads factual content that allows the court

that the detCndant is liable lor the misconduct

8

to

to survive a motion to dismiss. Id A

facts to state a claim to rcliefthat
when the plaintilr

pleading

of his "entitlement

recitation

cause of action will not do," Tll'{Jl/lbll'. 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).
does not need "detailed

\'. Sorema N.A ..

need only satisfy the "simplilied

requires more than labels and conclusions.

complaint

178 F.3d 231. 243 (4th

alleged"

Ashcrofi

1'.

Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009). "But where thc well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to

infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct. the complaint has alleged-but
'show[n],-.that

it has not

the pleader is entitled to relieC'" Id. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2»).

In reviewing the complaint in light ofa motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) the
court accepts all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts and
reasonable inferences derived therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiII See
Venkalraman \'. REI Sys., Inc.. 417 F.3d 418. 420 (4th Cir. 2(05); Iharra \'. Uniled Slates. 120
F.3d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1997); A~l'lan Lahs .. Inc.

I'.

Malkari. 7 FJd 1130. 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).

The court need not, however. accept unsupported legal allegations. see Rel'ene \'. Charles Cal/nly
Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870. 873 (4th Cir. 1989). legal conclusions couched as lactual allegations. see
Papasan

1'.

Allain. 478 U.S. 265. 286 (1986). or eonclusory laetual allegations devoid of any

reference to actual events. see Uniled Black FireJighlers \'. Jlirsl. 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir.
1979),
B,

Motion for Summary .Judgment

Summary Judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) which provides that •.[tJhe court
shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that therc is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a mattcr of law:' "This standard provides
that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly suppOited motion for summary judgment; the rcquircment is that there be no
genuine issue of male rial fact." Anderson\'. Liherly Lohhy. Inc .. 477 U. S. 242. 247-48 (1986)
(emphasis in original). Thus. "[tJhe party opposing a properly supported motion for summary
judgment 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his J pleadings.' but rathcr must
'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. ... BOl/chal \'. Ballimore

9

Ravens Foo/ball Club. Inc .. 346 F.3d 514. 525 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
On a motion for summary judgment. the court must "view the evidence in the light most
favorable to ... the nonmovant. and draw all interences in her favor without weighing the
evidence or assessing the witness' credibility:'

Dennis \'. Columhia Colle/on Med. Or.. Inc" 290

F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). The co11l1
must. however. also abide by the "affirmative
obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding
to trial." BOl/cha/. 346 F.3d at 526 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In Anderson \'. Liber/y Lobby. Inc" 477 U.S. 242. 249 (1986) the Supreme Court
explained that in considering a motion for summary judgment. the "judge's function is not
himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial:' A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party:' !d. at 248.
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact. No genuine issue of material fact exists if the nonmoving party fails to make a
sufticient showing on an essential element of his or her case as to which he or she would have the
burden of proof. See Celo/ex Corp. \'. Ca/rell. 477 U.S. 317. 322-23 (1986). Therefore. on those
issues on which the nonmoving party has the burden of prooL it is his responsibility to conli'ont
the summary judgment motion with an atlidavit or other similar evidence showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.

10

III.

ANALYSIS
A.

Statute of Limitations

Corizon defendants allege that some of Maziarz's claims arc barred by the statute of
limitations. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action. but with respect to the statute of
limitations, the Court must look to the law of the State in which the cause of action arose.
specifically, the relevant state statute oflimitations

for personal-injury torts. lVallace \', Kalo, 549

U.S. 384, 387 (2007) (citing Owens \'. Okure, 488 U.s. 235. 249-250. (1989); lVilson \'. Garcia.
471 U.S, 261, 279-280 (1985». In Maryland. the applicable statute of limitations is three years
from the date of the occurrence. See Md, Cts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann.

9 5-101.

Although the state statute of limitations applies. the time of accrual of the action is a
federal question. Cox \', Slal1lon, 529 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1975). The running of the statute of
limitations begins when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of his injury, Id, Here. Maziarz
alleges he was denied constitutionally adequate medical care beginning in 2010. ECr Nos, 1 & 5,
Because Maziarz's initial complaint was not filed until November 12.2014.9 ECF No. I. the
statute of limitations bars consideration of his claim as it relates to the provision of medical care
. occurring on or before November 12. 20 II,
B.

Qualified Immunity

The Wexford defendants, citing Filarsky

1'.

Delia. 132 S,C!, 1657. 1667-68 (2012). claim

that they are entitled to qualified immunity, ECF No. 29 at 8. Filarsky ovel1urned the denial of
qualified immunity to an attorney who was retained by a city in California to assist in an internal
investigation concerning a firefighter's potential wrongdoing. Id. at 1666. The Wexford

A self-represented inmate is entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. under \vhich the court regards a
petition or motion as having been filed when delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court. See lIolfstol1 '",
Lack. 487 U.S. 266. 276 (1988) (finding pro se prisoner's notice of uppeal was filed at moment of delivery to prison
authorities for mailing to district court).
9

1I

defendants fail to demonstrate that Filar.l'ky has been extended to eontraetual health care providers
working in detention centers or correetional facilities. and the Court will not do so here.
C.

Respondeat Superior

The law in the Fourth Circuit is well established that the doctrine of respondea/ sllperior
does not apply in

S

1983 claims, See Lm'e-Lane \', lv/arlin. 355 F. 3d 766. 782 (4th Cir. 2004). A

private corporation is not liable under

S

1983 lor actions allegedly committed by its employees

when such liability is predicated solely upon a theory of respondea/ sllperior. See Ails/in
Paramount Parh

1'.

fnc., 195 F.3d 715. 727-28 (4th Cir. 1999): Pml'ell \'. Shopco Lallrel Co.. 678

F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1982).
Liability of supervisory ollicials "is not based on ordinary principles of respondea/
superior, but rather is premised on 'a recognition that supervisory indifference or tacit
authorization of subordinates' misconduet may be a causative factor in the constitutional injuries
they infliet on those committed to their care:" Baynard \" Malone. 268 F. 3d 228. 235 (4th Cir.
2001) (quoting Siakan v. Porter, 737 F. 2d 368. 372 (4th Cir. 1984)), Supervisory liability under

S

1983 must be supported with evidence that: (I) the supervisor had actual or constructive
knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed a pervasive and unreasonablc
risk of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff: (2) the supervisor's response to the
knowledge was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the
alleged offensive practices; and (3) there was an allirmative causal link between the supervisor's
inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff: See Sha\\' \'. S/l'OlId. 13 F.
3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1994).
Maziarz's claims against Warden Wolfe, Wexford Health Sources. Inc., and Corizon. Inc..
which detail no personal involvement. are insufficient. Maziarz has pointed to no action or

12

inaction on the part of Warden Wolfe. Wexford Health Sources. Inc.. and Corizon. Inc. that
resulted in a constitutional injury. and accordingly. his claims against these defendants shall be
dismissed.JO This determination. however. does not end the Court's inquiry.
D.

Medical Claim
i.

Corizon Defendants

The Eighth Amendment prohibits "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" by virtlle of
its guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. GreRR \'. Georgia. 428 U.S. 153. 173 (1976).
"Scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment is not limited to those punishments authorized by statute
and imposed by a criminal judgment:'

De 'Lol1/a\'. Angelone. 330

r. 3d 630.

633 (4th Cir. 2003)

(citing Wilson\'. Seiler, 501 U.S.294. 297 (1991 )). In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim
for denial of medical care. a plaintiff must demonstrate that the actions of the defendants-or
failure to act-amounted

their

to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See £.I'lelle \'.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97.106 (1976). Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need requires proof
that, objectively, the prisoner plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical need and that.
subjectively, the prison staff were aware of the need for medical attention but failed to either
provide it or ensure the needed care was available. See Farmer \'. Eren/wll. 5 I I U.S. 825. 837
(1994). The medical condition at issue must be objectively serious. See Hudmn \'. McMillian. 503
U.S. 1,9 (1992) (there is no expectation that prisoners will be provided with unqualified access to
health care).
The subjective component requires "subjective recklessness" in the face of the serious
medical condition. See Farmer. 51 I U.S. at 839-40. "True subjective recklessness requires
knowledge both of the general risk. and also that the conduct is inappropriate in light or that risk:'

10

In light of this conclusion. the Court need not consider

Woite's

remedies.

13

claim that Maziarz failed to exhaust administrative

Rich v. Bruce. 129 F. 3d 336. 340 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1997). "Actual knowledge or awareness on the
part of the alleged intlicter ... becomes essential to proof of deliberate indifference 'because
prison otlieials who lacked knowledge ofa risk cannot be said to have inflicted punishment'"
Brice v. Va. Beach Correcliona! Cenler. 58 F. 3d 101. 105 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer 511
U.S. at 844.) If the requisite subjective knowledge is established. oftieials may avoid liability "if
they responded reasonably to the risk. even if the harm ultimately was not averted:' Formei'. 51 I
U.S. at 844. Reasonableness of the actions taken must be judged in light of the risk the defendant
actually knew existed at the time. See Brown \'. Harris. 240 F. 3d 383. 390 (4th Cir. 2000).
"[A ]ny negligence or malpractice on the part of ... doctors in missing Ia I diagnosis does
not, by itself, support an inference of deliberate indifference:' Johnson\'. Quinones 145 F. 3d
164,166 (4th Cir. 1998). Without evidence that a doctor linked presence of symptoms with a
diagnosis of a serious medical condition. the subjective knowledge required for Eighth
Amendment liability is not present. Jd. at 169.
In essence. the treatment rendered must be so grossly incompetent or inadequate as to
shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness. MillieI' \'. Beom. 896 F.2d 848.
851 (4th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). "Deliberate indifference may be demonstrated by either
actual intent or reckless disregard:' iHillier. 896 F.2d at 851. Reckless disregard occurs when a
defendant "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety: the [defendant

J

must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists and he must also draw the inference:' Farmer \'. Brennan. 511 U. S. 825. 837
(1994). Thus, a health care provider must have actual knowledge of a serious condition. not just
knowledge of the symptoms. Quinones. 145 F.3d at 168. Mere negligence or malpractice does not

14

rise to a deprivation of constitutional rights. RussellI'. Sheffer. 528 F.2d 318. 319 (4th Cir. 1975):
Don/an v. Smilh. 662 F. Supp. 352. 361 (D. Md. 1986).
Additionally, the right to treatment is "limited to that which may be provided upon a
reasonable cost and time basis and the essential test is one of medicalnecessily

and not simply

that which may be considered merely desirah/e." Bmrring \'. GOlilrin. 551 F.2d 44. 47-48 (4th
Cir. 1977). Here. the record evidence indicates that during the relevant time where Corizon
employees provided medical care to Maziarz (November 12. 2011 through June 30. 2012).
Corizon and its employees considered Maziarz's requests for medical care and his needs were
addressed. Maziarz's medical records demonstrate that he was secn regularly by medical
personnel and referred for olFsite medical tcsting. which ultimately resulted in his undergoing
surgery. In the approximate two months that Corizon employees were responsible for Maziarz's
medieal care after his surgcry. he was seen for follow up care and additional diagnostic testing
was provided.
Any delays in providing treatment. diagnostic cvaluations. or follow up care which have
occurred do not appear to be deliberate. nor have they rcsultcd in any harm to Maziarz. Maziarz's
numerous grievances with the medical decisions madc rcgarding what tests and trcatments are
necessary in light of the symptoms presented are rellective of his frustration. but "[d]isagrecments
between an inmate and a physician over the inmate's proper medical carc do not state a

* 1983

claim unless exceptional circumstances are alleged." Wrig/ul'. Collins. 766 F.2d 841. 849 (4th
Cir. 1985) (citing Gill/emacker \'. Prasse, 428 F.2d L 6 (3rd Cir. 1970)). There are no exceptional
circumstances alleged in this case. Defendants John Moss. Andrew Moultrie.11 Damon FayalL

II John Moss and Andrew Moultrie are entitled to summary judgment as to Maziarz's claims arising on or before June
30,2012. Maziarz's claims as to Moss and Moultrie OCCUlTing alter June 30. 2012. \"hen they' were employed by

Wexford, shall proceed.

15

Julianne Jenny. Michael Roman and Eric Booker are therefore entitled to summary judgment for
their actions during the time they were employed by Corizon.
ii.

Wexford I)efendants

Wexford maintains that Maziarz has not asserted any claims against Dr. Syed Rizvi. John
Moss, Lashauna Grier. or Emmanuel Esianor for the time during which its employees provided
eare for Maziarz. The Court disagrees. In his Amended Complaint. Maziarz states that Rizvi was
one of the doctors obligated to provide medical care and insure that his medical directives were
fulfilled, which he alleges did not occur. ECr NO.5 at 5. He also alleges that Grier was vested
with the authority to coordinate inmates' medical care and concerns with security stall'. Id. at 6.
John Moss, a physician's assistant. was responsible. according to Maziarz. for preparing wrilten
diagnosis and making the proper referral to the supervising physician. among other things. Id. at
7. Additionally, he claims that Moss failed to properly investigate the status of his care. Id. at 9.
Maziarz claims that "Emanuel Esianor ... a Physician' s Assistant \\'ho by his action and inaction
failed to properly treat Plaintiff. advance detailed and accurate inlormation lor additional
treatment of Plaint itT but to do so as required:' Id. at 7.
Defendants summarize Maziarz's allegations as to Dr. Moultrie as lollows: Moultrie did
not personally examine him on certain occasions while physicians assistants did; Moultrie should
have increased his blood pressure medicine: Moultrie should have ordered the removal of
Maziarz's neck brace: and Moultrie should have ordered "single bunk" housing ECF No. 29-1 at
2. The Court docs not construe Maziarz's allegations so narrowly. A fair reading of Maziarz's
Complaint indicates that. in addition to claiming that Moultrie refused to order that Maziarz be
single-celled and failed to provide appropriate post-surgical care and lollow up. Maziarz alleges
that Moultrie delayed evaluating him. and intentionally interfered with or delayed Maziarz's

16

follow up care with oft~site medical providers. ECF NO.5 at 11. 13-15. Maziarz complains that
he has been denied meaningful post-surgical follow up care as well as appropriate care for his
continuing degenerative disk disease. ECF Nos. 1 & 5. In light of Maziarz's diagnosed
degenerative disc disease and the alleged delay. interference. and withholding of medical services.
the court finds that he has sut1iciently stated a claim. Wexford delendant's motion to dismiss shall
be denied as to delendants Dr. Rizvi. John Moss. Lashauna Grier. Emmanuel Esianor. and Dr.
Moultrie.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated. the dispositive motions tiled by the Corizon delendants and

Warden Wolfe are granted. The dispositive motion liled by the Wexford delendants is granted as
to Wexford Health Sources. Inc.. and denied as to delendants Dr. Rizvi. John Moss. Lashauna
Grier, Emmanuel Esianor, and Dr. Moultrie. A separate Order follows.

Date:

/i~-

George 1. Hazei
United States District Judge

17