Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Chessnavage

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 5, 2017

CURTIS E. WILLIAMS, #275-455 Plaintiff
v.
TIMOTHY CHESNAVAGE DR. KAHLID ELBEDAWI Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          James K. Bredar United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Curtis E. Williams, presently confined at the Maryland Reception Diagnostic Classification Center (“MRDCC”), filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking money damages against a Baltimore County Detention Center (“BCDC”) corrections officer, Timothy Chesnavage, alleging use of excessive force during an incident on December 10, 2015. (ECF 1 at p. 3.)[1] Williams further claimed that after receiving treatment for injury suffered during the incident, Dr. Kahlid Elbedawi, a BCDC physician, did not provide necessary pain medication. (Id. at p. 4.)

         On October 28, 2016, Williams was granted 21 days to complete a United States Marshal service of process form to assist the Clerk in obtaining service of process on Dr. Elbedawi. (ECF 16.) Williams did not comply; accordingly, Dr. Elbedawai is dismissed without prejudice from this action.

         Defendant Chesnavage filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (ECF 8) that was dismissed without prejudice, subject to renewal, upon submission of an affidavit. Chesnavage has complied. (ECF 14.) Although Williams was informed on two occasions pursuant to the dictates of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that he was entitled to file written opposition to the motion or risk dismissal of his case without further notice (ECF 12 and 15), Williams has failed to respond to the motion.

         Standard of Review

         Motion to Dismiss

         In reviewing the complaint in light of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 plaintiff. Venkatraman v. REI Sys., Inc., 417 F.3d 418, 420 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)); Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 473 (4th Cir. 1997). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Migdal v. Rowe Price-Fleming Int'l Inc., 248 F.3d 321, 325-26 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002) (stating that a complaint need only satisfy the “simplified pleading standard” of Rule 8(a)).

         The Supreme Court of the United States has explained a “plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original). Nonetheless, the complaint does not need “detailed factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at 555. Instead, “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Id. at 563. To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility 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. “But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -- but it has not 'show[n]' -- 'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'” Id. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

         Summary Judgment

         Summary judgment is governed by Rule 56(a), which provides:

The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

         The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will defeat the motion:

By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.