United States District Court, D. Maryland
JAMES A. HENSON, JR., Plaintiff
JANICE GILMORE, et al., Defendants
K. Bredar Chief Judge
Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and Janice
Gilmore filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, motion for summary judgment, as supplemented.
ECF 20, 22,  & 25. Plaintiff has
responded (ECF 23), and defendants have replied. ECF
26. Upon review of the papers and exhibits filed, the court
finds an oral hearing in this matter unnecessary.
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons
stated below, the motion will be granted.
case was instituted upon receipt of a civil rights complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from plaintiff James
Henson, an inmate held at the Western Correctional
Institution (“WCI”). ECF 1. Plaintiff claims
he is the subject of a “hit” and is treated with
racial animus by inmates and correctional staff. Id.
Plaintiff claims that Janice Gilmore, whom he identifies as
the Regional Healthcare Manager for the Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”),
Barbara Newlon, whom he identifies as the former DPSCS
Regional Healthcare Manager, and Wexford Health Sources are
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. ECF 1
at 4. He claims that defendants “blatantly, knowingly
disregard an excessive risk to [his] health, safety and
welfare.” Id. He does not explain how the
named defendants have disregarded his health, safety, or
welfare. Additionally, he complains about his
“prolonged years in solitary confinement” but
does not explain how the named defendants are responsible for
the same. Id. Plaintiff filed a “Supplemental
Complaint” (ECF 6), which is a copy of an
administrative remedy grievance he filed raising the same
conclusional statements regarding the named defendants'
alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
following facts are undisputed or construed in favor of
plaintiff, unless otherwise noted. Janice Gilmore avers that
she was employed as the Regional Administrator for Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. ECF 20-2, ¶ 1. She is not a
clinician and does not prescribe, administer, or approve
medications. Id., ¶ 3. Gilmore avers that she
has no personal knowledge of appointments where
plaintiff's treatment was discussed and that she was not
involved in his treatment in any way. Id., ¶ 4.
She states that if she had received a complaint from
Plaintiff, then she would have directed him to use the sick
call process. Id. ¶ 5. She indicates that she
has no personal knowledge of a “hit” placed on
him and has no personal knowledge of any racist conduct
directed toward him. Id. at ¶¶ 6 & 7.
Defendants have submitted 117 pages of plaintiff's
pertinent medical records, which demonstrate that he is seen
regularly by medical providers. ECF 22-1; ECF 25-1.
Motion to Dismiss
purpose of a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the
plaintiffs complaint. See Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). The
dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted does not require defendant to establish
“beyond doubt” that Plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to
relief. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 561 (2007). 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. The
court need not, however, accept unsupported legal
allegations, see Revene v. Charles County Comm
'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), legal
conclusions couched as factual allegations, see Papasan
v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986), or conclusional
factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events,
see United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d
844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979).
Motion for Summary Judgment
judgment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(a), which provides in part,
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 ...