United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar Chief Judge
Lloyd, a self-represented Maryland prisoner, filed a civil
rights complaint alleging that he was illegally detained in a
State correctional facility when he injured his right triceps
after falling from his bunk. He alleges he received
constitutionally inadequate medical care for his injury. ECF
6. Now pending are Motions to Dismiss or, in the Alternative,
for Summary Judgment filed by defendants J. Philip Morgan
(ECF 21) (“Correctional Defendant”), Contah
Nimely, Lori Slavick, and Wexford Health Source, Inc.
(“Medical Defendants”). ECF 27. Plaintiff opposes
the motions (ECF 29, 30, 33, 37), and Medical Defendants
filed a reply. ECF 35. No hearing is necessary to resolve the
motions. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the
reasons that follow, Correctional Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment, shall be granted,
plaintiff's complaint against Deputy State's Attorney
for Baltimore County Garrett Glennon and Warden J. Philip
Morgan shall be dismissed, and Medical Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment, shall be denied without
prejudice, subject to renewal within 45 days of the date of
indicates that in 2009 he was convicted of bank robbery and
related offenses in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.
He was sentenced to 25 years' incarceration without the
possibility of parole. On February 23, 2015, his petition for
post-conviction relief was granted and his conviction
vacated. ECF 1, p. 7.
21, 2015, three months after he was granted post-conviction
relief, he alleges he improperly remained confined in state
prison at the Maryland Correctional Training Center
(“MCTC”). Id. He states that his
post-conviction counsel contacted Deputy State's Attorney
Glennon requesting that he be transferred to the County
Detention Center. Id., p. 8. Plaintiff indicates his
belief that since he was then awaiting trial it was improper
to continue to house him in the Division of Correction.
housed at MCTC, he fell from his bunk sustaining a serious
injury to his right elbow. Id. Plaintiff states that
he was “falsely diagnosed with a bone spur: and later
taken to a local hospital where he was diagnosed with a torn
tricep [sic] and blood clot.” ECF 6, p. 3. He
states that it took five months to have his injury treated
and he underwent two surgeries to repair his arm. The first
was performed on March 1, 2016, at Bon Secours hospital. ECF
1, p. 8. Plaintiff states his surgery was
“botched.” Id. Plaintiff indicates he
was denied proper postoperative medical care by the named
medical defendants who failed to follow the discharge
instructions of his surgeon. Id., p. 8. Rather,
Physician Assistant Lori Slavick removed the stitches. ECF 6,
p. 3. The removal of the stitches/staples left a hole in his
right elbow. He claims that as a result he has suffered
excruciating pain, draining, infection, and burning from the
ulcer that developed at the surgical site. ECF 1, pp. 8-9. He
claims he was tortured by the physical therapist and received
second-degree burns on his biceps. ECF 6, p. 3. He also
claims he was burned by Dr. Saleem Muhammed. Id.
is currently housed at MCTC. ECF 21-2 (Declaration of Tom
Nittinger, Case manager, ¶ 4). After plaintiff's
successful post-conviction hearing, he was remanded to the
custody of the Division of Correction (“DOC”).
Id.; Id, p. 3 (docket entries). He was
returned to Baltimore County for his retrial. Id.,
pp. 6 & 7. Nittinger avers that the DOC has authority to
hold inmates in its custody based upon the authority of the
writ it receives from the courts. Id., ¶ 3.
is Medical Defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's
correspondence (ECF 37) as being an improper surreply. ECF
38. Given plaintiff's self-represented status, and the
denial without prejudice of Medical Defendants'
dispositive motion, the motion shall be denied.
pending is plaintiff's “Supplement to Amended
Complaint.” ECF 39. Plaintiff indicates that on June
29, 2017, he was returned to Bon Secours Hospital for
additional surgery to treat his elbow injury. He states that
once again his post-operative orders were not followed and
that Contah Nimely continued to provide follow-up care,
despite the conflict of interest that exists due to
plaintiff's suing Nimely in this case. Additionally,
plaintiff alleges that he was directed to return to the
surgeon two weeks after his surgery but was not returned.
Instead, staff at the prison removed his stitches. Plaintiff
maintains that this is the same type of conduct that caused
him injury after his initial surgery to repair his elbow. He
further maintains that his follow-up treatment with the
surgeon was scheduled for August, weeks after the surgeon
directed he return for follow-up care. Id.
Defendants oppose plaintiff's amending the complaint (ECF
40) maintaining that any amendment would be a futility.
Medical Defendants argue that his new surgery is unrelated to
the claims in the initial complaint. Id. The court
disagrees. Plaintiff's initial complaint concerned his
claim that he was denied proper medical care for his elbow
injury, including proper post-surgical care. The June 2017
surgery appears to be a continued effort to treat
plaintiff's elbow injury, which was apparently not
resolved by the first surgery, and represents ongoing
treatment of the injury central to the initial complaint. As
such, plaintiff shall be permitted to amend the complaint to
include these claims.
Defendants indicate that if the court grants the amendment to
the complaint they will require additional time to obtain
supplemental medical records and communicate with providers
regarding plaintiff's course of treatment. Id.
In light of the foregoing, Medical Defendants'
dispositive motion shall be denied without prejudice, subject
to renewal. Medical Defendants shall renew their dispositive
motion within 45 days of the date of this Memorandum and
Defendants Glennon and Morgan