United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
response to Plaintiff Larry Hamilton's civil rights
complaint, Defendants move to dismiss or for summary judgment
based in part on their assertion that the complaint is barred
by the doctrine of res judicata. ECF 12, see
also Hamilton v. Washington Co. Det. Ctr., et al., Civil
Action RDB-18-2851 (D. Md. 2018) (hereinafter Hamilton
I). Hamilton has filed three motions to appoint counsel
(ECF 11, 19, 24); a Motion for Federal Administrative
Building Inspector (ECF 10), eight pieces of correspondence
(ECF 16-18, 21-23, 26, 27) and a supplemental complaint (ECF
25). For the reasons stated below the Court concludes this
action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata,
denies Hamilton's pending motions, and grants
Defendants' motion, which is construed as a Motion to
a former detainee at Washington County Detention Center
(WCDC), alleges that in "the shower area and other
places throughout" the facility there is "excessive
black mold spores." ECF 1 at 4. He adds that the mold is
"mainly in the showers and ventilation areas."
Id. He claims that as a result of being exposed to
the mold he suffers from eye irritation, persistent cold-like
symptoms, difficulty breathing, and a skin rash. Id.
Civil Action RDB-18-2851 Hamilton sued WCDC, Captain Long,
Warden Rose, Washington County Board of Commissioners,
Washington County Sherriff s Department, Sherriff Doug
Mullendore, and Meritus Medical Staff Correct Solutions.
Hamilton I at ECF 1, ECF 4. The complaint concerned
numerous allegations that Hamilton was denied medical care
and claims that the conditions of his confinement were
unconstitutional. One of the conditions he complained of
related to the skin rash alleged in the instant complaint
which he attributed to exposure to black mold. Id.
at ECF 1, p. 6 ("I also been negligently subjected to
taking showers in mold").
Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,
which was unopposed by Hamilton, and with regard to the
alleged denial of medical care observed that:
The undisputed record establishes that Hamilton received
adequate treatment for the medical complaints he presented to
medical staff. To the extent he believed he was entitled to
more than the treatment provided, his claim represents a
disagreement with the treatment provided to him. Further, the
complaint fails to establish that Hamilton suffered a
cognizable injury due to the failure to provide him with the
treatment of his choice. Hamilton has failed to attribute any
deliberate failure to provide him with treatment for a
serious medical need by the Defendants who have been served
with the complaint, all of whom are correctional employees or
municipal entities. The unserved medical care contractor is
entitled to dismissal of the claims against it in light of
the medical records establishing that Hamilton was provided
adequate medical care.
Hamilton I at ECF 24, p. 11.
regard to Hamilton's claim against Washington County
Board of Commissioners and the Sherriff s Department, this
Court concluded he had failed to state a claim for municipal
In suing a municipal government and agency under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, Hamilton must prove two elements to succeed in
this claim. First, he must establish the existence of a
constitutional violation on the part of the police officers.
See Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)
(jury's finding that a police officer inflicted no
constitutional injury on the plaintiff removed any basis for
municipal liability against city and members of police
commission); Temkin v. Frederick Cty. Comm'rs,
945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991) (§ 1983 claim of
inadequate training or supervision cannot be established
without a finding of a constitutional violation on the part
of the person being supervised); see also Dawson v.
Prince George's County, 896 F.Supp. 537, 540 (D. Md.
1995). Second, Plaintiff must show that any constitutional
violations were proximately caused by a policy, custom, or
practice of the Defendants. See Monell v. Dep't of
Social Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 694 (1978).
Municipal policy arises from written ordinances, regulations,
and statements of policy, id. at 690; decisions by
municipal policymakers, Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475
U.S. 469, 482-83 (1986); and omissions by policymakers that
show a "deliberate indifference" to the rights of
citizens. See Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388
Hamilton does not cite any injury he has sustained, nor has
he described a constitutional violation that has occurred as
a result of a policy, custom, or practice of either the
Washington County Board of Commissioners or the Sherriff s
Department. The claims against these Defendants must be
Hamilton I at ECF 24, p. 10-11.
Hamilton's correspondence he seemingly responds to the
Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, stating that
counsel is attempting to "railroad the plaintiff'
through introduction of medical records that show the
medication he was provided was given by nurses, not doctors.
ECF 16 at 10. He claims it is "criminal conduct" to
prescribe "medicines not holding records and other
criminal activity by the medical staff as no doctor was
present as prior misconduct of staff." Id.
Hamilton focuses the content of this letter on the quality of
medical care provided to him while at WCDC and mentions only
once the issue of black mold. Id. at 11. He attempts
to differentiate between his current claim of ...