United States District Court, D. Maryland
PREDERICK MOTZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Bright, a self-represented litigant formerly incarcerated at
the Western Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland
("WCI"),  filed a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"),  as supplemented, claiming: (1) he has been
denied heart and blood pressure medications by defendants
Barrera, Lewis, Kimberly Martin and Carla Buck; (2) defendant
Carls has failed to remove a broken orthopedic screw; (3) a
treatment rendered by defendants Ryan and Hott caused severe
burns that have become infected; (4) defendant Reese will not
permit medical staff to provide him antibiotics to fight the
infection; and (5) defendant McLaughlin prescribed medication
that caused an allergic reaction. ECF No. 1 at 1-5 and ECF
No. 3 at p. 3.
Carls, Ryan, Lott, McLaughlin, Dennis Martin, and Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. were dismissed on July 28, 2016. ECF 6.
The remaining defendants, Barrera, Lewis, Kimberly Martin,
Buck, and Reese, now seek to dismiss the case or,
alternatively, move for summary judgment. ECF 38. Bright
opposes the dispositive motion (ECF 44), and defendants have
filed a reply to the opposition response. ECF 49. After
review of the papers filed, the court finds a hearing on the
pending matters unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6
(D. Md. 2016).
matters outside the pleadings are presented in defendants
dispositive motion, it shall be considered a motion for
summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Summary Judgment is
governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) which provides that:
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.
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 that there be
no genuine issue of material fact.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).
party opposing a properly supported motion for summary
judgment 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of [his] pleadings, ' but rather must 'set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens
Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003)
(alteration in original) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The
court should "view the evidence in the light most
favorable to . . . the nonmovant, and draw all inferences in
her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the
witness' credibility." Dennis v. Columbia
Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir.
2002). The court must, however, also abide by the
"affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent
factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to
trial." Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Drewitt v. Pratt,
999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993), and citing Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)).
medical defendants include Registered Nurses Kimberly Martin,
Carl Buck, Tiffany Bennett, and Brenda Reese; Licensed
Practical Nurse Maria Lewis; and Dr. Robustiano Barrera. As
previously noted, Bright alleges that he was denied heart and
blood pressure medications by Barrera, Lewis, Martin, and
Carla Buck between December 4, 2015 and December 18, 2015.
Bright also alleges that Reese instructed nursing staff to
deny him antibiotics to fight the infection allegedly
suffered due to burns incurred during post-surgical physical
therapy. Bright seeks $250, 000, 000.00 in damages for
alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights.
Eighth Amendment prohibits "unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain" by virtue of its guarantee against
cruel and unusual punishment. Gregg v. 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
'Lonta v. Angelone,330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir.
2003) citing Wilson v. Setter, 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 their failure to act amounted to
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See
Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
"Deliberate indifference is a very high standard - a
showing of mere negligence will not meet it. . . . [T]he
Constitution is designed to deal with deprivations of rights,
not errors in judgments, even though such ...