Onley v. Wexford Health Sources Inc.
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/14/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 12/14/15)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAI'iD
SOllthern DiI'i~;(l1I
....•
:;:,
-<
I
*
TIRAYONLEY,
*
.
~
Plaintiff,
.r::
:;r.o
»
t:J-'1
en
r.;
-..;
*
-J
0
u;C
...•.
::o~
-0
n-fU>"TJ
o-f_
"'~r
:l:nfT1
;t>-fO
::on
-<0
,-c
;t>::O
z ....•
0
*
Defendants.
*
=
,."
n
...,U>
:-:;;
\'.
*
::>P
-f,."
e>::O
:=<>O>;
,." .
Case No.: G.IH-J;;i-$lJ~
._ -it
*
WEXFORD ilEAL TH SOURCES, INC.,
et aI.,
~
•..•.•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
'*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tiray Onley has tiled a civil rights complaint
unspecifIed
money damages
employees.
and !cHlr Maryland
reprcsented
prisoner
Maryland
shoulder.
("DOC')
Correctional
and referral to a specialist
*
1983. sceking
Inc. ("WexlcJr(j"'). two or its
employees.
Onley. a sclt~
Training Center in Ilagerstown.
allegcs that (I) prison health carc providcrs
resume a work dctail. and (2) corrcctions
medical clearance.
Health Sources.
Division or Correction
housed at the Maryland
("MeTC").
follow up treatment
against Wexrord
under 42 U.S.c.
railed to provide appropriatc
to treat a scrious injury berore clcaring him to
pcrsonnel
scnt him oul on a work detail without
As a result. Onley claims he has sustained
additional
injury to his right
ECF NO.1 a13.
Pending is an unopposed
I
Motion 10 Dismiss filed by counscl Ic)r Dercndant
(ECF No. 16). No hearing is needed to resolve the issues raised in the Complaint.
105.6 (D. Md. 2014). For the Ic}lIowing reasons. the dispositive
Wexfont"
SI!I!
Local Rule
motion will be GRANTED.
I Pursuant to the dictates of RO.'lf!horo \', Garrison.
528 F.2d 309 Hth Cir. 1(75). the Clerk OfCOl1l1 011 June 20.
2015, infonncd Plaintiff that Defendant Wexford tiled a dispositive motion. that Plaintitl" had seventeen days in
'''The purpose ofa Rule 12(b)(6) motion [to dismiss] is to test the sufficiency ofa
complaint. ... McBumey \".Cuccinelli. 616 r.3d 393. 408 (4th Cir. 20 I0) (citation omitted). A
Rule 12(b)( 6) motion constitutes an assertion by the Defendant that. even if the filcts that
plaintiff alleges are true. the complaint fails. as a matter of law... to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted:' Fed R. Civ. 1'. 12(b)(6). Therefore. in considering a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6). a court must accept as true the well-pled facts in the complaint and vie\\'
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Brockinglon \'. Boykins. 637 r.3d 503. 505 (4th
Cir. 2011).
Defendant Wexford argues that the Complaint should bc dismissed against it because as a
corporate entity it cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. ~ 1983 solely undcr a respondcat
superior theory. ECF No. 16-1 at 2-3. The Court agrecs. See Clork \" .lId. Dep'l of1'uh. So{2/)'
.
ondCorr. Sen's .. 316 F. App'x. 279. 282 (4th Cir. 2(09): Aus/in \'. Pal"{/lI1oulI/ arks. Inc. 195
P
r.3d 715, 727-28 (4th Cir. 1999): Powell,'. SllOPCO
Laurel Co.. 678 r.2d 504. 506 (4th Cir.
* 1983. liability is imposed on any pcrson who shall subject. or cause to bc
any person to the deprivation of any rights. 42 U.S.c. * 1983. The statute requires a
1982). Under
subjected.
showing of personal lault. whether based upon the Defendant's own conduct or another's
conduct in executing the Defendant's policies or customs. See Monell \'. No
rc. Dep'l
o{Social
Sen's., 436 U.S. 658,690 (1978): wesl\". AIkins. 815 F.2d 993. 996 (4th Cir. 1(87). re,,'d on
olher grounds. 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (no allegation ofpcrsonal involvcment relevant to thc claimcd
deprivation): Vinnedge \".Gihhs. 550 F.2d 926. 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (explaining that in ordcr lill"
tile written opposition to the Illotion. and that ifPlaintifffail~d
to respond. claims against Wexford could
be dismissed without further notice. See ECF No. 12. PlaintilThas chosen not to respond. The Dclendants' Illotion
shall be granted on this basis as well as 011 the merits.
which to
:.?
The correctional Defendants' response to the Complaint is due on October 21. 2015. The individual health care
providers have not been served.
2
an individual Defendant to be held liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
* 1983. it must bc "aflirmatively
shown that the oflicial charged acted personally in the deprivation of the plailltilTs rights .. :").
For these reasons. the unopposed Motion to Dismiss tiled on behal f of Wcxlllrd is
GRANTED in a separate Order.
Dated:
December
I'l
L/<-
.2015
GEORGE .I. HAZEL
United States District Judge
3
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?