United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, United States District Judge
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. 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. ECF No. 30, p. 10; ECF
No. 31, ¶ 3.
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.
Health Sources, Inc.
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.
Mahler, Nurse Practitioner
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
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).
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