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.

Rivera v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 30, 2018

ANTONIO RIVERA, #352-432 Plaintiff
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., PEGGY MAHLER, Nurse Practitioner, RICHARD GRAHAM, JR., Warden, and DAYENA CORCORAN, Commissioner of Correction, All Defendants are Sued for Actions Under Color of Law in Their Individual and Official Capacities Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, United States District Judge

         Antonio Rivera, a Maryland prisoner housed at Western Correctional Institution (“WCI”), seeks money damages and declaratory relief based on the denial of proper medical treatment for a meniscus tear of the left knee first diagnosed in late 2016. ECF No. 1, pp. 1-2, 19.[1] In a December 8, 2017, Memorandum Opinion, this Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner of Correction and WCI's Warden, finding they had no supervisory authority over the medical employees alleged to have caused the injury. ECF No. 30, p. 9. Consideration of the merits of the medical Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment was held in abeyance, subject to renewal after the outcome of a pending surgical consultation.[2] ECF No. 30, p. 10; ECF No. 31, ¶ 3.

         In response to Court order, the medical Defendants, in addition to their initial summary judgment motion (ECF No. 22), have provided two status reports with exhibits, as supplemented, outlining the additional treatment provided to Rivera. ECF Nos. 33, 35 and 36. Rivera has opposed the initial summary judgment motion (ECF No. 26), and has submitted his own status report (ECF No. 32) and a second response in opposition to the medical Defendants' summary judgment motions (ECF No. 34). After review of the papers filed, the Court finds a hearing on the pending matters unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the reasons outlined below, the medical Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (ECF No. 22), as supplemented (ECF Nos. 33, 35 and 36) will be granted.

         Analysis

         Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

         Wexford Health Sources, Inc., is a private corporation contracted by the State of Maryland to provide medical services to inmates in the State's custody, and is entitled to dismissal based on the record outlined herein. A private corporation is not liable under § 1983 for actions allegedly committed by its employees when such liability is predicated solely upon a theory of respondeat superior. See Austin v. Paramount Parks, Inc., 195 F.3d 715, 727-28 (4th Cir. 1999); Powell v. Shopco Laurel Co., 678 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1982); Clark v. Maryland Dep't of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 316 Fed.Appx. 279, 282 (4th Cir. 2009); see generally Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, 782 (4th Cir. 2004) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). The complaint presents no discernible claim directly involving Wexford other than its role as the medical services provider, and the complaint against it is therefore dismissed.

         Peggy Mahler, Nurse Practitioner

         As noted in the previous Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 30), the remaining aspect of the pending dispositive motion relies on matters outside the pleadings and is therefore 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.

         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 that there be no genuine issue of material fact.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that:

If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts to justify its ...

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.