United States District Court, D. Maryland
STEVEN T. HOLLIS, III, Plaintiff
DAWN HAWK, et al., Defendants
Xinis United States District Judge.
Plaintiff, Steven Hollis, filed the above-captioned civil
rights action against Defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc.
(“Wexford”) and Dawn Hawk. Hollis challenges the
medical treatment he received following his complaints of a
swollen scrotum. ECF No. 1. Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss, ECF No. 9, and Hollis filed a Response in
Opposition, ECF No. 14. On the Court's instruction,
Defendants also addressed the timing of Plaintiff's
filing of the Complaint, to which Hollis responded. ECF Nos.
20, 21. The matter is now ripe for review, with no need for a
hearing. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that
follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to
Defendant Wexford and DENIED as to Defendant Hawk.
alleges that on August 9, 2015, he sought medical attention
from Nurse Dawn Hawk at North Branch Correctional Institution
for a swollen scrotum. He states:
4. I was physically walked, almost carried to the medical
office by some officers on the 3-11 shift from the housing
unit 2-A-tier dayroom.
5. Upon my arrival I was ungreeted by the nurse know in this
lawsuit as Dawn Hawk.
6. Before struggling to take a seat she said she wasn't
looking at my scrotum to see how severely swollen it was, she
wasn't touching it, and not sending me out to get it
7. She told [Correctional Officer] Beasom to give me a pack
of ice and she would bring the [ibuprofen] down.
8. The camera will show [Officer] Beasom giving me a[n] ice
bag and then later on coming to the cell tossing [ibuprofen]
to me on the top bunk.
9. The next morning when I was getting ready to pray, I
smelled a[n] awful smell. I looked down and blood was running
down my leg. . . . I was seen by medical and the nurse said
that I had a[n] abscess and the medication that was given to
the police to give me caused it to burst.
ECF No. 1 at 2.
move to dismiss the Complaint as barred by limitations. ECF
No. 9-2 at 2-3; ECF No. 20. Defendant Wexford additionally
contends that dismissal is warranted because Hollis has
failed to aver plausibly any facts supporting liability as to
the institution. ECF No. 9-2 at 3-4. Defendant Hawk contends
that dismissal is warranted as to her because the Complaint,
at best, states a claim for medical negligence and not
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
Id. at 4.
Standard of Review
motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the
sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of
Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint
need only satisfy the standard of Rule 8(a), which requires a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). “Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a
‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of
entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). That showing must
consist of more than “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action” or ...