United States District Court, D. Maryland
W. GRIMM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
response to Plaintiff Brandon Davon Gant's civil rights
complain,, ECF No. 1, Defendants Department of Public Safety
and Correctional Services, Sergeant Robert Jordan,
Correctional Officer II Adele Olakanya and Correctional
Officer II Oluwasegun Fashae filed a Motion to Dismiss or for
Summary Judgment. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff Brandon Gant was
advised of his right to file an Opposition and of the
consequences of failing to do so, ECF No. 14, but has not
filed anything in response to the Defendants' motion. For
the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion, construed as
a Motion for Summary Judgment, shall be granted. No. hearing
is necessary to resolve the matters pending. See
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016).
prisoner confined to Jessup Correctional Institution (JCI),
alleges that on the morning of October 24, 2017, he was taken
to a room where disciplinary hearings are held and
strip-searched without explanation by Defendants Jordan,
Olakanye and Fashae. Compl. 2-3. Gant admits he
"protested a little" and as a result was placed in
handcuffs and told by Jordan if he refused again "it
would be done for [him]." Id. at 3. Gant states
he followed the orders given because he did not want "to
be violated any further." Id. He claims that,
despite his compliance, all three officers then "slammed
[Gant] on [his] neck and shoulder and began twisting [his]
arms and legs," causing him "extreme pain."
Id. Gant states that he had been stabbed six months
prior to this incident in his neck and shoulder area.
Id. He also claims that the officers physically
searched him, which made him feel "sexually
violated." Id. Although he states that the
officers recovered nothing, he also states he was placed on
lock-up and issued a ticket at 2:00 p.m. for "a green
leafy substance," which he claims he did not possess.
do not dispute Gant's allegation that he was escorted to
the adjustment hearing room where a strip search was
conducted, but insist that they did not touch him other than
to remove and replace his handcuffs, and that he declined any
medical examination after the search. Jordan Deck, ECF No.
13-3; Olakanya Deck 2, ECF No. 13-4; Fashae Deck 2, ECF No.
13-5. They also assert that they conducted the strip search
in accordance with established directives. See Fitch
Deck & Prison Recs. 44, ECF No. 13-2 (excerpt of
Executive Directive OPS 110.0047).
issued a notice of inmate rule violation for possession of
contraband, which was determined to be synthetic cannabis.
Fitch Deck & Prison Recs. 2, 11, 28, 30, ECF No. 13-2. At
the disciplinary hearing, Gant pled guilty to possession of a
controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. As
a result he received a sentence of 90 days segregation and 90
days lost good conduct time. Mat 32-41.
claims that the next morning he awoke with severe pain and
numbness on his left side and he filed a sick call slip and
an administraiive remedy procedure (ARP) complain,, but was
not seen until two weeks later. Compl. 3. Yet the medical
records show that Gant was seen by medical staff on the day
following the incident and did not complain about injuries
sustained day before. Med. Recs. 27, ECF No. 13-7. He did
complain on November 7 and 8, 2017, however. Id. at
22, 25. According to Gant, when he was seen by the doctor, he
was told he had severe nerve damage and would need an x-ray.
Compl3. He alleges that, as of the date he filed the
complaint (November 15, 2017,, he had not received
"proper medical attention." Id.
record shows that Gant did file an ARP, claiming that
Defendants physically searched his rectum and forced his
buttocks apart. Fitch Deci. & Prison Recs. 3-7. His claim
was investigated on November 7, 2017 and determined to be
without merit. Id. Gant did not appeal the dismissal
of his ARP to the Inmate Grievance Office (IGO). Fitch Decl.
& Prison Recs.
alleges that the named Defendants used excessive force in
violation of his Eighth Amendment right to remain free from
cruel and unusual punishment. Compl. 4. He claims Defendants
sexually assaulted him in violation of his Fifth Amendment
rights and exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As
relief, Gant seeks monetary damages. Id. at 2.
argue that Gant has failed to allege a claim of
constitutional rights violation regarding use of force; that
the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
(DPSCS) is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; the
complaint must be dismissed due to Gant's failure to
exhaust administrative remedies; and Gant has failed to
demonstrate that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
a serious medical need. Defs.' Mem.
judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates,
through "particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
... admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials," that "there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law"" Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a),
(c)(1)(A); see Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, 714
F.3d 828, 833 (4th Cir. 2013). If the party seeking summary
judgment demonstrates that there is no evidence to support
the nonmoving party's case, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party to identify evidence that shows that a
genuine dispute exists as to material facts. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 585-87 & n.10 (1986). When considering
cross-motions for summary judgment, "the court must view
each motion in a light most favorable to the
non-movant." Linzer v. Sebelius, No. AW-07-597,
2009 WL 2778269, at *4 (D. Md. Aug. 28, 2009); see Mellen
v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 363 (4th Cir. 2003). I view
the relevant facts in the light most favorable to Gant as the
party opposing summary judgment. See Mellen v.
Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 363 (4th Cir. 2003); Lynn v.
Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., No. WDQ-11-2824, 2013 WL
1247815, at *1 n.5 (D. Md. Mar. 25, 2013).
against DPSCS Gant brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S
1983. Section 1983 provides a remedy for individuals who have
been deprived of their constitutional rights under color of
state law. See 42 U.S.C. S 1983 (2012); City of