United States District Court, D. Maryland
ANDREW J. DICKS, #336-138, Plaintiff,
WARDEN BOBBY P. SHEARIN, COLIN OTTEY, MD, GREG FLURY, JAMES HUNT, JENNIFER BRADFIELD, LISA SHELL, AVA JOUBERT, MICHELE SCHULTZ, AMANDA SWAN, KIMBERLY HIENBAUGH, RN, QUINTA LUM, RN, DAWN HAWK, RN, KRISTI CORTEZ, RN, Defendants.
GEORGE L. RUSSELL, III, District Judge.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Andrew J. Dicks's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4); Defendants', Colin Ottey, Greg Flury, James Hunt, Jennifer Bradfield, Lisa Shell, Ava Joubert, Michele Schultz, Kimberly Hienbaugh, Quinta Lum, Dawn Hawk, and Kristi Cortez (the "Medical Defendants"),  Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 27); and Defendant Warden Bobby P. Shearin's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23). Having considered the Motions, and Responses thereto (ECF Nos. 7, 16, 25, 26, 28), the Court finds no hearing necessary pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 (D.Md. 2014). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4), Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13), and Motion to Strike (ECF No. 27); and grant Shearin's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff alleges he has been suffering from skin lesions that have spread to various areas of his body. Plaintiff states the rash started in June of 2012. Plaintiff states the Medical Defendants examined him on several occasions between June 2012 and March 2014, and prescribed topical creams and medications, all of which were ineffective. Plaintiff also alleges, however, specific instances where the Medical Defendants refused to examine him and he was denied treatment. Plaintiff states he has been denied testing and diagnoses, and he has been given inadequate treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
A. Non-Dispositive Motions
Plaintiff is self-represented; as such, his Complaint and pleadings are to be construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Although he captions his November 20, 2014 correspondence as a "Supplemental Complaint" (ECF No. 26), the Court will construe the letter as a supplemental response to the Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and deny the Medical Defendants' Motion to Strike (ECF No. 27).
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction requiring his transfer "to an outside hospital" for treatment for his skin condition. ECF No. 4. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy. See Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citing 11A C. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, p. 129 (2d ed. 1995)). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate: 1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; 2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; 3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). All four of the requirements must be established independently. The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009).
The Court finds Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable injury if he is not immediately transported to an outside hospital. Furthermore, Plaintiff indicates that he was recently sent to an outside specialty clinic for assessment of his skin disease. ECF No. 26. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be denied.
B. Dispositive Motions' Standard of Review
1. Motion to Dismiss
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must set forth "a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "In considering a motion to dismiss, the court should accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff." Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).
2. Motion for Summary Judgment
"When matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the [12(b)(6)] motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56." Laughlin v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 149 F.3d 253, 260-61 (4th Cir. 1998) (alteration in the original) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court must grant summary judgment if the moving party demonstrates there is ...