United States District Court, D. Maryland
Catherine C. Blake, United States District Judge.
response to this civil rights complaint, defendants Anne
Arundel County Detention Facility (AACDF), Anne Arundel
County, Maryland, Pamela Zimmerman, and Michael Okacha filed
a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary
judgment. ECF 7. Plaintiff was informed by the court,
pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), that the failure to file a response in opposition
to the motion filed by defendants could result in dismissal
of the complaint. ECF 8. Plaintiff has not filed an
opposition to the motion. The court finds no need for a
hearing. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the
reasons that follow, defendants' motion, construed as a
motion for summary judgment, shall be GRANTED.
Andre Salisbury alleges in his unverified complaint that
while incarcerated at the AACDF he was discriminated against
by Pamela Zimmerman and Mike Okacha and his rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act violated. ECF 1 at p. 2.
Plaintiff is a paraplegic and has been confined to a
wheelchair since November of 2006. ECF 1-1. He claims that he
was lied to about being able to work as a trustee; that when
he asked about working he was told that he was not cleared,
which he alleges was untrue. ECF 1 at p. 2. Id. He
claims that working would have reduced his sentence.
relief, he seeks a change in policy, the crediting of
"industrial days [he] should [have] earned," and
unspecified compensatory damages for "mental anguish for
present and future treatment." ECF 1 at p. 3.
argue that the AACDF is not a legal entity amenable to suit.
Further, they claim that plaintiff was not discriminated
against under the ADA.
Zimmerman, Case Manager for the Anne Arundel County
Department of Detention Facilities, avers that Michael Okacha
is her supervisor, and that she is familiar with the Trustee
Program offered at AACDF. ECF 7-2 at ¶¶ 2 & 3.
Zimmerman was plaintiffs case manager during his
incarceration at the AACDF facility at Ordnance Road.
Id. at ¶ 5. Corizon Health was the medical
provider at the Ordnance Road facility at that time.
explains that the Trustee Program permits inmates to work
jobs in exchange for reductions or diminution of their
sentences. ECF 7-2 at ¶ 3. In order to participate in
the program, an inmate must be medically cleared by
AACDF's medical provider. Id. at ¶ 4.
Eligibility to participate in the program is based upon
medical clearance as well as an inmate's classification
status which must be minimum security or lower. Id.
Zimmerman explains that the classification status can change
and is determined by the inmate's behavior as well as
their criminal history. Id.
housed at the AACDF at Ordnance Road, plaintiff requested to
participate in the program. ECF 7-2 at ¶ 5. Zimmerman
reviewed plaintiffs request and noted that he did not have a
medical clearance from Corizon Health but was otherwise
qualified to participate in the program. Id. at
¶ 6. Zimmerman discussed with plaintiff his
participating in the program and advised him that once he was
cleared by Corizon Health, he could begin to work in the
program as either an Inmate Observation Aide or Library
Assistant Inmate Worker, positions which could accommodate an
inmate in a wheelchair. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff
was told that once he was medically cleared, he could be
transferred to the AACDF's Jennifer Road Correctional
Center to work in either of those positions. Id.
Zimmerman specifically denies that plaintiffs wheelchair was
a factor in his qualifying to participate in the program.
Id. at ¶ 6. She further denies that he was held
to a different standard from other inmates and affirms that
the only thing that prevented plaintiff's assignment to
the program was his lack of medical clearance, a requirement
that all inmates must satisfy in order to participate in the
program. Id. at ¶ 9.
unspecified time, plaintiff was transferred to another
housing unit and assigned a different Case Manager and
Supervisor. ECF 7-2 at ¶ 8. On an unspecified date, he
received his medical clearance and was approved to
participate in the Trustee Program with a scheduled start
date of December 15, 2017. Id. His participation in
the Trustee Program will result in his receiving "a
day-for day diminution of his sentence." Id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
motion is styled as a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. A motion styled in this manner implicates
the court's discretion under Rule 12(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Kensington Vol. Fire
Dep't, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty.,788 F.Supp.2d 431,
436-37 (D. Md. 2011). Ordinarily, a court "is not to
consider matters outside the pleadings or resolve factual
disputes when ruling on a motion to dismiss."
Bosiger v. U.S. Airways,510 F.3d 442, 450 (4th Cir.
2007). However, a court, in its discretion, may convert the
motion into one for summary judgment. Id. If the
court does so, "the motion must be treated as one for