# Murrill v. Hough

> District Court, D. Maryland · November 6, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10204374

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Maryland
- **Decided:** November 6, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10204374

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

:
LONNIE K. MURRILL
:

v. : Civil Action No. DKC 17-2255

:
OTIS MERRITT, WARDEN, et al.
:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this civil
rights case are: Defendant Kevin Hickson’s (“Mr. Hickson”) motion
to dismiss (ECF No. 93), Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.’s
(“Wexford”) motion to dismiss (ECF No. 98), and Plaintiff’s motions
for entry of default against Defendants Kelcie Hough (ECF No. 105)
and Sunday Ogundipe (ECF No. 106). The issues have been fully
briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed
necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, the
motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Hickson will be denied. The
motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Wexford will be granted. The
motions for entry of default against Defendants Hough and Ogundipe
will be granted.
I. Background
Unless otherwise noted, the facts outlined here are set forth
in the third amended complaint and construed in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff. In January 2013, Mr. Murrill was placed
into the pre-trial custody of the Maryland Department of Public
Safety and Correctional Services (“DPSCS”) at the Baltimore City
Detention Center (“BCDC”)1. Shortly thereafter, he was convicted
and sentenced. Following sentencing, he was supposed to be
transferred to the Maryland Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and

housed in protective custody because he required special
protection from other inmates. Mr. Murrill was instead left at
BCDC and housed in administrative segregation—a section designated
for inmates posing a serious threat to the general population. On
January 27, 2015, an inmate by the name of Joel Santiago viciously
assaulted another inmate. As a result, DPSCS officials placed Mr.
Santiago into administrative segregation in a shared cell with Mr.
Murrill located on the T block.
Mr. Santiago’s placement into Mr. Murrill’s cell caused him
to fear for his safety as Mr. Santiago was known among the
prisoners for his violence and possessed the delusion that Mr.
Murrill was sent there to kill him. Mr. Murrill orally requested

a transfer several times to no avail. On February 15, 2015, Mr.
Murrill filed an official grievance with the BCDC Resident
Grievance Office (“RGO”) requesting an immediate transfer.
In the early morning hours of February 16, 2015, Mr. Santiago
brutally attacked Mr. Murrill until he lay incapacitated on the

1 Medical services for incarcerated individuals at BCDC were
provided by Wexford.
floor of their shared cell. During the attack, Mr. Murrill cried
out for help but received no assistance from any BCDC guards.
While Section T, the area in which Mr. Murrill was housed during
the attack, was a two-man post, it was staffed by only one guard
at the time of the attack. The guards are supposed to conduct

rounds at regular intervals to observe inmates but failed to do so
in the hours after the attack. As a result, Mr. Murrill was not
found and seen by a doctor until 12:09 PM that day.
Mr. Murrill was ultimately sent to the R. Adams Cowley Shock
Trauma Center in Baltimore where he was treated for three days.
On February 19, 2015, he was moved to an infirmary bed at
Metropolitan Transition Center (“MTC”). Staff at MTC were unable
to get in contact with Wexford to discuss his condition. On March
11, 2015, Mr. Murrill was transferred back to BCDC. He was
scheduled to see a neurosurgeon on March 18, 2015 but was not seen
until almost a month later on April 16, 2015. Mr. Murrill was
then transferred to the wrong prison and deprived of his prescribed

psychiatric and somatic medications. He continued to be wrongfully
transferred between prisons and deprived of his prescriptions for
more than three months after the attack.
Mr. Murrill sustained permanent neck and spine injuries from
the attack. No record of the attack was included in the Section
T Logbook or the BCDC Serious Incident Reports and Mr. Santiago
was never formally reprimanded for the attack.
II. Procedural History
On August 7, 2017, Mr. Murrill, proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint against BCDC and BCDC’s Warden, Otis Merritt. (ECF No.
1). On September 17, 2017, still proceeding pro se, Mr. Murrill
filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 3). On March 15, 2018,
Warden Merritt and BCDC jointly filed a motion to dismiss the

amended complaint. (ECF No. 18). On June 26, 2018, Mr. Murrill
filed his opposition (ECF No. 23), and a second amended complaint
adding additional defendants. (ECF No. 24). On January 14, 2019,
the court dismissed the claims asserted against BCDC, deferred
ruling on the claims against Warden Merritt, appointed counsel for
Mr. Murrill, and granted leave to amend the second amended
complaint. (ECF No. 27). On November 14, 2019, Mr. Murrill,
through counsel, filed the presently pending third amended
complaint against twenty-three defendants alleging a violation of
his Eighth Amendment rights (Count I), a violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights (Count II), a violation of
the Maryland Code of Correctional Services (Count III), gross

negligence (Count IV), and negligence (Count V). (ECF No. 45).
Most of the defendants answered the third amended complaint. Two
filed motions to dismiss: on May 26, 2020, Mr. Hickson filed a
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 93-1) and on July 9, 2020, Wexford filed
a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 98). On July 19, 2020, Mr. Murrill
responded to Mr. Hickson’s motion. (ECF No. 101). On July 30,
2020, Mr. Hickson replied. (ECF No. 102). On August 6, 2020, Mr.
Murrill responded to Wexford’s motion. (ECF No. 93). On August
22, 2020, Wexford replied. (ECF No. 104). Two defendants have
not appeared at all and, on September 3, 2020, Mr. Murrill filed
motions for entry of default against Defendant Hough (ECF No. 105)

and Defendant Ogundipe (ECF No. 106).
III. Motion to Dismiss
A. Standard of Review
A motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the
sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City of Charlottesville,
464 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2006). A plaintiff’s 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

“naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations
omitted).
“[W]hile a plaintiff is not required to plead facts that
constitute a prima facie case in order to survive a motion to
dismiss, [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Coleman v. Maryland Court of
Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Coleman
v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
At this stage, all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint

must be considered as true, Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268
(1994), and all factual allegations must be construed in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, see Harrison v. Westinghouse
Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Mylan
Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993)). In
evaluating the complaint, unsupported legal allegations need not
be accepted. See Revene v. Charles County Comm’rs, 882 F.2d 870,
873 (4th Cir. 1989). Legal conclusions couched as factual
allegations are insufficient, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, as are
conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual
events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th
Cir. 1979); see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th

Cir. 2009). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged, but it has not ‘show[n] . . . that the
pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). Thus, “[d]etermining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-
specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Id.
B. Analysis
1. Mr. Hickson’s Motion to Dismiss
Mr. Hickson argues that the third amended complaint should be
dismissed as to him because its “failure to allege any facts
demonstrating [his] personal involvement in the alleged

deprivation of [Mr.] Murrill’s civil rights is dispositive of
Counts 1 [] and 2 [] because personal involvement is an essential
element of claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (ECF
No. 93-1, at 1). He further argues that he is entitled to
qualified immunity for Counts I and II and to statutory immunity
for counts III, IV, and V, and that all claims are barred by the
three-year statute of limitations.
a. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims
1) Count I
Mr. Murrill alleges in Count I that Mr. Hickson violated his
Eighth Amendment right by acting with deliberate indifference in
both his failure to protect Murrill from the attack and by failing
to ensure he received proper and timely care after the attack.

“The [E]ighth [A]mendment protects a convicted inmate from
physical harm at the hands of fellow inmates resulting from the
deliberate or callous indifference of prison officials to specific
known risks of such harm, just as it protects against harm
resulting from deliberate indifference of prison officials to
serious medical needs.” Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977, 979 (4th
Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In
order to state a claim for failure to protect, an inmate must plead
facts that show that he was incarcerated under conditions posing

a substantial risk of serious harm, that the official was
deliberately indifferent to that substantial risk to his health
and safety, and that the official’s deliberate indifference caused
him harm. Deliberate indifference is a subjective standard,
meaning that the prison official must have actually known or been
aware of the excessive risk to inmate safety. See Makdessi v.
Fields, 789 F.3d 126, 133 (4th Cir. 2015).
“Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a
substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in
the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence
. . . and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of
a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994). For example, if a
plaintiff presents evidence showing that a
substantial risk of inmate attacks was
longstanding, pervasive, well-documented, or
expressly noted by prison officials in the
past, and the circumstances suggest that the
defendant-official being sued had been exposed
to information concerning the risk and thus
must have known about it, then such evidence
could be sufficient to permit a trier of fact
to find that the defendant-official had actual
knowledge of the risk.
Id. In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 850 (4th Cir. 1985), the
court found that “personal involvement stemming from [one’s]
duties as Warden [could be sufficient] to establish a basis for
§ 1983 liability.”
“[L]iability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be premised on

personal conduct and cannot rest on respondeat superior.” Monell
v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691–695 (1978). A
supervisor may be liable, however, if his alleged supervisory
indifference or tacit authorization of subordinate misconduct is
a causative factor in a person’s constitutional injuries. See
Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir. 1984) (“supervisory
officials may be held liable in certain circumstances for the
constitutional injuries inflicted by their subordinates”).
In the context of a failure to protect claim, however, a
plaintiff “assumes a heavy burden of proof . . . [h]e not only
must demonstrate that the prisoners face a pervasive and
unreasonable risk of harm from some specified source, but he must

show that the supervisor's corrective inaction amounts to
deliberate indifference or ‘tacit authorization of the offensive
[practices].’” Id. at 373, citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 632 F.2d
1096, 1101 (4th Cir. 1980). A supervisor’s “continued inaction in
the face of documented widespread abuses,” id., might prove such
a state of mind. “The proper question is whether [a supervisor]
acted wantonly, obdurately, or with deliberate indifference to the
pervasive risk of harm.” Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312,
1315 (4th Cir. 1991). If these requirements are not met, a
supervisor is not directly liable.
Here, Mr. Hickson argues that Mr. Murrill fails to allege
facts sufficient to either show or infer that he acted with

deliberate indifference because “[t]he sole allegations specific
to Mr. Hickson are [that] ‘Defendant Kevin Hickson is an individual
over the age of 18, and was a Duty Lieutenant assigned to BCDC
Section T during the C shift on February 15, 2015.’” (ECF No.
102, at 2) (citing ECF No. 45, ¶ 26). Mr. Murrill responds that
“there is more than a plausible inference” that Mr. Hickson knew
about the risk Mr. Santiago posed to his safety because among other
things, he “directly complained to Hickson about Santiago” and
“complained to officers that reported directly to Hickson.” (ECF
No. 101, at 16-17). In actuality, the amended complaint alleges
only that “Mr. Murrill orally requested a transfer several times”
(not that he complained directly to Mr. Hickson) and that he “filed

an official grievance with the BCDC Resident Grievance Office” the
day before the attack (but not that any person he complained to
reported directly to Mr. Hickson).2 (ECF No. 45, ¶¶ 57-58).

2 A complaint may not be amended simply by mentioning
additional facts in response to a motion to dismiss, and the
complaint has already been amended several times. Nevertheless,
should Plaintiff seek once more to amend, leave ordinarily is
denied “only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the
opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving
Even without those specific allegations, however, the
remaining allegations contained in the third amended complaint,
when taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, are sufficient to draw a reasonable inference that Mr.
Hickson had personal knowledge of the substantial risk of serious

harm facing Mr. Murrill. Such allegations include that Mr.
Hickson: (1) held a supervisory role as Duty Lieutenant at BCDC;
(2) was on duty for Section T during the time of the attack; (3)
failed properly to staff the block holding Mr. Murrill and to
ensure body checks were conducted at regular intervals; (4) failed
to add an entry noting the attack to the Section T Logbook; and
(5) failed to reprimand Mr. Santiago for the attack. (ECF No. 45,
¶¶ 26, 61-64). The third amended complaint further alleges that
Defendants: (1) were aware Mr. Murrill required protective
custody; (2) were on notice that Mr. Santiago posed a general
danger to other inmates given his previous attack of an inmate;
(3) were on notice about the danger Mr. Santiago posed specifically

to Mr. Murrill because he repeatedly requested transfer in the
three weeks preceding the attack and because he filed a formal
grievance the day before the attack; (4) failed to comply with

party, or the amendment would be futile.” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods
Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986); see also Mayfield v.
National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.2d 369, 379
(4th Cir. 2012). An amendment is futile if it could not withstand
a motion to dismiss. See Perkins v. U.S., 55 F.3d 910, 917 (4th
Cir. 1995).
DPSCS and BCDC policies; (5) failed to take available reasonable
measures to protect Mr. Murrill; and (6) failed to stop the attack
while it occurred despite Mr. Murrill’s cries for help. (ECF No.
45, ¶¶ 48-54, 58, 61-64, 108-113). Here, as in Wright, “[i]t is
conceivable that, if [Murrill] is permitted to press his claim on

the merits, he may be able to show sufficient personal involvement
stemming either from [Hickson’s] duties as [Duty Lieutenant] or
from his receipt of notification” from various possible sources
that Mr. Santiago posed a substantial threat to inmate safety.
Similarly, Mr. Murrill has sufficiently alleged that Mr.
Hickson acted with deliberate indifference to his plainly obvious
serious medical needs following the attack. To state a claim for
denial of medical care, an inmate must plead facts that show “that
the actions of the defendants or their failure to act amounted to
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.” Barnes v.
Wilson, 110 F. Supp. 3d 624, 631 (D.Md. 2015) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). “Deliberate indifference to a

serious medical need requires proof that, objectively, the
prisoner plaintiff was suffering from a serious medical need and
that, subjectively, the prison staff were aware of the need for
medical attention but failed to either provide it or ensure the
needed care was available.” Id.
It is undisputed that Mr. Murrill was suffering from an
objectively serious medical need. (See generally ECF Nos. 45; 93-
1). With respect to the subjective knowledge prong, Mr. Murrill
alleges that Mr. Hickson failed to monitor his safety when locked
in a cell with a cellmate known to be dangerous and failed to
respond in any capacity to his repeated cries for help during the
attack. These failures resulted in a nearly eight-hour delay in

learning of Mr. Murrill’s serious injuries and getting him medical
attention. As stated above, “a factfinder may conclude that a
prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that
the risk was obvious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. Mr. Murrill’s
allegations support a reasonable inference that Mr. Hickson was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs following
the attack.
Finally, contrary to Mr. Hickson’s assertion, Mr. Murrill
makes clear that he does not seek to hold him liable in his
supervisory capacity under a theory of respondent superior, but
rather for his personal involvement in failing to protect him from
a substantial risk of harm or for his allegedly tacit approval of

misconduct by subordinate prison officials.
Mr. Hickson also argues that he is entitled to qualified
immunity because, even if Mr. Murrill has stated a claim, it cannot
be said that that his actions violated a “clearly established”
right. (ECF No. 102, at 16). Qualified immunity “protects
government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (internal
citations omitted). To establish a qualified-immunity defense, a
public official must show that (1) a plaintiff has not alleged or
shown facts that “make out a violation of a constitutional right,”

or that (2) “the right at issue was [not] clearly established at
the time of” its alleged violation. Id. at 232.
A qualified immunity defense can be presented
in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but, as the Second
Circuit has noted, when asserted at this early
stage in the proceedings, the defense faces a
formidable hurdle and is usually not
successful. This is so because dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if a
plaintiff fails to state a claim that is
plausible on its face.

Owens v. Balt. City State’s Att’ys Office, 767 F.3d 379, 395–96
(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
As discussed, Mr. Murrill has “provide[d] sufficient detail about
his claim to show that he has a more-than-conceivable chance of
success on the merits.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Accordingly,
dismissal on qualified immunity grounds is inappropriate.
2) Count II
Mr. Murrill alleges in Count II that Mr. Hickson violated his
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights due to a failure “to timely
and fully process his grievances before and after the attack.”
(ECF No. 45, ¶ 123). The majority of the allegations contained in
Count II involve Defendants’ failure timely to process grievances
submitted by Mr. Murrill after the attack. One allegation,
however, is that Defendants failed timely to process a formal
grievance that Mr. Murrill filed the day before the attack. (ECF
No. 45, ¶¶ 7-8) (“On February 15, 2015, Mr. Murrill filed an
official grievance complaining about his housing situation and

requesting to be put in a different cell because of his prescient
concern for his life and safety from Santiago. Defendants failed
to act.”).
Mr. Hickson argues that Count II fails to state a claim
because it “alleges no facts linking Mr. Hickson to the receipt or
processing of Mr. Murrill’s grievances.” (ECF No. 93-1, at 16).
Mr. Murrill replies that “the day before his brutal attack, [he]
filed an official grievance with the BCDC RGO” and that “[c]learly,
there is more than a plausible inference that the Duty Lieutenant
would have been aware of this threat.” (ECF No. 101, at 17).
This conclusion is unsupported. Mr. Murrill alleges no facts
allowing for the inference that by virtue of his role as Duty

Lieutenant, Mr. Hickson would have had any involvement in the RGO’s
processing of his pre-attack grievance. Mr. Murrill has also not
alleged that any RGO employee would have formally or informally
communicated information it received in a grievance to Mr. Hickson.
Thus, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff,
the complaint fails sufficiently to allege that Mr. Hickson was
personally involved in the untimely handling of the February 15,
2015 grievance.
Likewise, Mr. Murrill has also failed to allege Mr. Hickson’s
personal involvement in any failures timely to process his post-
attack grievances. Mr. Murrill’s allegations include that: (1)

for the month that he was held at the Maryland DOC infirmary while
recovering from the attack, the officers there gave him misleading
information on how to submit grievances resulting in his grievances
being sent to the wrong places; (2) MTC failed to conduct a timely
review of his complaint resulting in the BCDC RGO’s dismissal of
his complaint as untimely; (3)the IGO delayed informing him that
it lacked jurisdiction over the BCDC; (4) BCDC’s grievance
procedure was not available to him while housed outside BCDC (due
to his infirmary stay and subsequent erroneous transfers); and (5)
BCDC’s grievance procedure was permanently foreclosed by the
facility’s closure in July 2015. (See ECF No. 45, ¶¶ 77-103).
Most of these allegations pertain only to actions taken by

Maryland DOC, MTC, or DPSCS IGO officials. Mr. Murrill never
alleges, however, that Mr. Hickson had any communication or
involvement with these officials. The only allegations that could
be construed as possibly relating to Mr. Hickson are those
involving the BCDC RGO’s rejection of Mr. Murrill’s complaint as
“untimely.” Yet such allegations neither state nor imply that Mr.
Hickson had any involvement in the BCDC RGO’s decision to reject
his complaint. In sum, Mr. Murrill has not plead facts stating
that Mr. Hickson played any role in the untimely processing of
either his pre-attack or post-attack grievances.
b. State Claims
As to Counts III, IV, and V, Mr. Hickson argues he is entitled
to statutory immunity because Mr. Murrill has not sufficiently

alleged that he acted with malice or gross negligence. (ECF No.
102, at 7).
“[G]enerally[,] under common law, the State [and its
employees] enjoy[] sovereign immunity and [are] thus protected
from suit for both ordinary torts and State constitutional torts.
The State, however, has partially waived this immunity by statute.”
Ford v. Baltimore, 149 Md.App. 107, 120 (2002). The Maryland Torts
Claim Act (“MTCA”) waives immunity for tort liability “[if] the
State employee has acted with malice or gross negligence.” Id.;
see also Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-522(b) (2006). In such
instances, “the injured party may [] bring a viable tort claim
against the State employee.” Id.

Whether or not gross negligence exists
necessarily depends on the facts and
circumstances in each case[,] and is usually
a question for the jury and is a question of
law only when reasonable [people] could not
differ as to the rational conclusion to be
reached. Ordinarily, unless the facts are so
clear as to permit a conclusion as a matter of
law, it is for the trier of fact to determine
whether a defendant’s negligent conduct
amounts to gross negligence.
Cooper v. Rodriguez, 443 Md. 680, 708–09 (2015) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Based on the totality of the
allegations contained in Mr. Murrill’s third amended complaint, a
reasonable trier of fact could find that Mr. Hickson acted with
gross negligence. Therefore, the issue cannot be resolved as a
matter of law and dismissal on statutory immunity grounds is
inappropriate.
c. Statute of Limitations
Mr. Hickson argues that all claims against him are time barred
because the third-amended complaint was filed outside of the
statute of limitations period and does not relate back to the

original complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). (ECF No. 93-1, at
19-22). Mr. Murrill, on the other hand, contends that his claims
against Mr. Hickson sufficiently relate back to the original
complaint because both complaints allege a single, continuous fact
pattern. (ECF No. 101, at 13-16).
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that a
party typically must raise in a pleading under Rule 8(c) and is
not usually an appropriate ground for dismissal. See Eniola v.
Leasecomm Corp., 214 F.Supp.2d 520, 525 (D.Md. 2002); Gray v.
Metts, 203 F.Supp.2d 426, 428 (D.Md. 2002). Dismissal is proper,
however, “when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the
existence of a meritorious affirmative defense.” Brooks v. City
of Winston–Salem, 85 F.3d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1996); see 5B Charles
A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357,
at 714 (3d ed. 2004) (“A complaint showing that the governing
statute of limitations has run on the Plaintiff’s claim for relief
is the most common situation in which the affirmative defense

appears on the face of the pleading and provides a basis for a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”).
It is not clear from the face of the complaint that the third
amended complaint does not relate back to the date of the original
filing. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). It is not obvious that Defendant
Hickson “should [not] have expected, within the limitations
period, that [he] was meant to be named a party in the first
place.” Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 471 (4th Cir.
2007). Thus, the defense is not appropriately considered at this
time and will not bar the addition of Mr. Hickson as a defendant.
2. Wexford’s Motion to Dismiss

Wexford argues that it should be dismissed as a defendant
because the third amended complaint fails to state a claim against
it under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under state law for gross or simple
negligence. Wexford further argues that all claims are time-
barred.
a. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

Mr. Murrill alleges in Count IV that Wexford violated his
Eighth Amendment right by acting with deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs. A prisoner has a constitutional right
to the medical care necessary to address his serious medical needs.
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976). A prison
official’s “deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical
needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment.” See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir.

2014). The necessary showing of deliberate indifference can be
manifested by prison officials in responding to a prisoner’s
medical needs in various ways, including intentionally denying or
delaying medical care, or intentionally interfering with
prescribed medical care. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05.
Importantly, a judicial assessment of deliberate indifference has
two aspects — an objective inquiry and a subjective inquiry. See
Jackson, 775 F.3d at 178.
To satisfy the objective inquiry of a deliberate indifference
claim, “the inmate’s medical condition must be serious — one that
has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one

that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize
the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Id. To satisfy the
subjective inquiry of a deliberate indifference claim, the
plaintiff must show that the official “knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate safety or health.” See Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 837. “Where a deliberate indifference claim is predicated on
a delay in medical care . . . there is no Eighth Amendment violation
unless ‘the delay results in some substantial harm to the patient,’
such as a ‘marked’ exacerbation of the prisoner’s medical condition
or ‘frequent complaints of severe pain.’” Formica v. Aylor, 739
F.App'x 745, 755 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing Webb v. Hamidullah, 281
F. App’x 159, 166-67 (4th Cir. 2008)).

A corporation cannot be held liable under § 1983 unless the
entity’s policies or customs caused one or more of its employees
to deprive the plaintiff of a federally protected right. See
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-92 (1978); see
also Powell v. Shopco Laurel Co., 678 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1982).
A plaintiff may demonstrate the existence of an official policy in
three ways: (1) a written ordinance or regulation; (2) certain
affirmative decisions of policymaking officials; or (3) in certain
omissions made by policymaking officials that “manifest deliberate
indifference to the rights of citizens.” See Carter v. Morris,
164 F.3d 215, 218 (4th Cir. 1999). An official policy may be
created “by making a single decision regarding a course of action

in response to particular circumstances.” Semple v. City of
Moundsville, 295 F.3d 708, 712 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Pembaur v.
Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 468, 481 (1986)).
Wexford argues that Mr. Murrill’s § 1983 claim should be
dismissed because his third amended complaint (1) fails to allege
facts showing or permitting the inference that any person was
deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need and (2) fails
to allege facts showing or permitting the inference that Wexford
had a policy or custom that led to any person being deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. (ECF No. 98, at 7-8).
Mr. Murrill responds that “unreasonable delay in medical treatment
on its own may amount to” deliberate indifference and that “taken

together, [his assertions] are surely sufficient to allege
deliberate indifference.” (ECF No. 103, at 15). To support this,
he points to the following facts: (1) he was scheduled to see a
neurosurgeon on March 18, 2015 but was “inexplicably not seen until
almost a full month later” (ECF No. 45, at ¶ 74); (2) Wexford
“ignored attempts by medical staff at MTC to obtain a status report
on [his] condition and as a result all attempts at contact between
the medical teams failed”3 (ECF No. 103, at 15); and (3) several
improper transfers “regularly deprived [him]” of his prescribed
psychiatric and somatic medications, in some instances, for “more
than three months.” (Id., ¶¶ 75-76).
Mr. Murrill is correct that “a delay of medical care can be

deliberate indifference when it results in some substantial harm
to the Plaintiff, such as exacerbation of the injury or
unnecessarily prolonging the inmate’s pain.” (ECF No. 103, at
15); see Aylor, 739 Fed.Appx. 745, 755. Here, however, Mr. Murrill

3 The text of the third amended complaint actually states only
that “MTC medical staff were unable to reach BCDC medical to give
a report on Mr. Murrill’s condition, so all attempts at contact
between the medical teams failed.” (ECF No. 45, ¶ 72).
has failed to allege with any specificity how the postponed
neurology appointment or delay in receiving his prescriptions
resulted in a substantial harm to him. For example, he does not
state that either delay prolonged his pain. He states that he
continues to suffer from physical and emotional ailments resulting

from the attack but never alleges that such ongoing ailments are
causally related to the delay of his neurology appointment or in
receiving his prescriptions. He also does not allege anywhere in
the complaint that the failed communications between MTC and
Wexford caused him any harm.
Even if Mr. Murrill had alleged that any person employed by
Wexford acted with deliberate indifference, he has not pled facts
that allow for the inference that Wexford had a custom or policy
that caused any such person to deprive him of a federally protected
right. He has pointed to no written ordinance or regulation by
Wexford, and no affirmative decision or omission by a Wexford
policymaking official. Mr. Murrill attempts to argue he has

sufficiently alleged the existence of a policy or custom by
analogizing to Owens v. Balt. City State's Att’ys Office, 767 F.3d
379, 402 (4th Cir. 2014). There, the plaintiff’s complaint survived
a motion to dismiss because it alleged that a series of reported
and unreported cases established that the defendant had a custom
or policy of unconstitutional practices. Mr. Murrill points to
two cases where it was alleged that Wexford had an unconstitutional
policy or practice of denying medical care to inmates and baldly
states that, “the case law in this District is replete with
examples of Wexford’s unconstitutional policies and/or customs.”
(ECF No. 103, at 17). Plaintiff’s analogy to Owens is fruitless
because such allegations appear nowhere in his third amended

complaint and surface for the first time only in his response.
Mr. Murrill has failed to state a § 1983 claim against Wexford.
b. State Claims
Wexford next argues that Mr. Murrill fails to state any
negligence claim against it under Maryland law because he fails to
allege the applicable standard of care owed by any Wexford
employee, how that standard of care was breached, or that Mr.
Murrill suffered any injury proximately caused by any breach. (ECF
No. 104, at 7). Wexford further argues that Mr. Murrill’s
negligence claims are subject to the requirements of the Maryland
Health Care Malpractice Claims Act (“HCMCA”) and thus, his failure
to arbitrate requires dismissal. (Id., at 7.) Mr. Murrill, on
the other hand, argues that Wexford “overstates the scope of the

HCMCA” and instead contends that the HCMCA does not apply to his
claims against Wexford because it does not apply to ordinary
negligence claims. (ECF No. 103, at 19).
The HCMCA provides: “A person having a claim against a health
care provider for damage due to a medical injury shall file the
claim with the Director [of the Health Care Alternative Dispute
Resolution Office (“HCAO”) - a unit of the executive branch of
Maryland’s state government]” for arbitration. Md. Code, Cts. &
Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-04 (a)(1). “In general, the [HCMCA] requires
certain medical malpractice claims to be submitted to an
arbitration panel for initial ascertainment of liability and

damages before resort may be had to a court of law for final
determination.” Oxtoby v. McGowan, 294 Md. 83, 86 (1982). “[T]he
legislative mandate that the arbitration procedure under the Act
be followed as a precondition to invoking the general jurisdiction
of a court is analogous to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.” Id., at 91. Section 3–2A–01(g) of the
HCMCA defines “medical injury” as an “injury arising or resulting
from the rendering or failure to render health care.”
The scope of the HCMCA, while initially murky, has long since
been clarified. See Brown v. Rabbitt, 300 Md. 171, 172 (1984)
(“For the third time in little over a year we are called upon to
determine whether a claim against a health care provider is covered

by the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act.”). In determining
whether a claim is subject to the HCMCA, “the critical question is
whether the claim is based on the rendering or failure to render
health care and not on the label placed on the claim. If health
care is or should be rendered and damage results therefrom, then
it is a claim under the Act and must first be arbitrated.” Id.,
at 175. “[O]ur cases make clear that the cause of the injury must
have been ‘a breach by the defendant, in [its] professional
capacity, of [the] duty to exercise . . . professional expertise
or skill’ in rendering or failing to render health care.”
Afamefune ex rel. Afamefune v. Suburban Hosp., Inc., 385 Md. 677,
695 (2005) (internal citations omitted).

When it is clear from the allegations of the
complaint that the plaintiff’s claimed injury
was not inflicted during the rendering or
failure to render medical service or that it
was the result of conduct having utterly no
medical validity in relation to the medical
care rendered, the action properly proceeds in
Circuit Court, without first resorting to
arbitration.

Id. Claims falling outside the scope of the HCMCA include only
“those claims for damages arising from a professional’s failure to
exercise due care in non-professional situations such as premises
liability, slander, assault, etc.” Cannon v. McKen, 296 Md. 27,
37-38 (1983).
The types of cases in which the HCMCA was not applicable
include cases where the plaintiff: (1) was sexually assaulted
during a medical procedure (see Afamefune, 385 Md. 677, 694) (“an
assault, rape or attempted rape can in no way be described as
medical service”); (2) was held down and struck in the face during
a medical procedure (see Nichols v. Wilson, 296 Md. 154 (1983);
and (3) was pricked by an uncapped hypodermic needle left lying on
a surface in a surgical waiting area while accompanying her father
to surgery (see Swam v. Upper Chesapeake Med. Ctr., Inc., 397 Md.
528 (2007)). Even in Cannon, 296 Md. 27, 37-38, where the
plaintiff sued her dentist for injuries she sustained when part of
a dental chair broke loose and fell on her, the court of appeals
remanded the case to the trial court on the ground that the
pleadings were “too sparse to allow a determination of whether

[the plaintiff’s] injury arose because of the defendant’s breach
of his professional duty owed her or because of a breach of duty
which he may have owed her as a premises owner or in some other
non-professional capacity.” In short, “if the trial court is
unable to conclude that the allegations remove the claim from the
Act’s coverage, the court should not exercise jurisdiction over
the claim until a malpractice claim is filed with the HCAO. The
HCAO initially will determine if the claim alleges a “medical
injury” and is therefore subject to the Act. Goicochea v.
Langworthy, 345 Md. 719, 728–29 (1997).
Here, Mr. Murrill’s negligence claims stem from Wexford’s
alleged failure to provide prescription medications, timely to see

him, and to communicate with other medical providers. Such acts
all constitute a “professional duty to exercise the appropriate
care required of a health care provider in a professional
capacity.” Cannon, 296 Md. 27, 37 (1983). Contrary to Mr.
Murrill’s assertions, the fact that he “has not brought a claim
for medical malpractice against Wexford” is not dispositive. (ECF
No. 103, at 20). Thus, Mr. Murrill’s negligence claims fall within
the ambit of the HCMCA and require submission to an arbitration
proceeding as a condition precedent to raising the claim in this
forum. Accordingly, these claims will be dismissed.
IV. Plaintiff’s Motions for Entry of Default
A. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a), “[w]hen a party against whom
a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or

otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or
otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default.” A
defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff
to entry of a default judgment; rather, that decision is left to
the discretion of the court. See Dow v. Jones, 232 F.Supp.2d 491,
494 (D.Md. 2002). The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit has a “strong policy” that “cases be decided on
their merits,” id. (citing United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11
F.3d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1993)), but default judgment may be
appropriate when the adversary process has been halted because of
an essentially unresponsive party, see SEC v. Lawbaugh, 359

F.Supp.2d 418, 421 (D.Md. 2005) (citing Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d
831, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
B. Analysis
1. Defendant Ogundipe
Defendant Sunday Ogundipe was served properly on March 13,
2020. (ECF No. 82). Ms. Ogundipe’s Answer was due on April 3,
2020. Due to the COVID-19 state of emergency, Standing Order
2020-07 provided that all filing deadlines originally set to expire
between March 16, 2020, and June 5, 2020 were to be extended by
eighty-four days, unless “the presiding judge in an individual
case set a different date by an order issued after the date of

this Order.” (ECF No. 86). Thus, Ms. Ogundipe’s deadline for
answering was extended to June 26, 2020. To date, no appearance
or answer on behalf of Ms. Ogundipe has been filed. Accordingly,
Mr. Murrill’s motion for entry of default as to Ms. Ogundipe will
be granted.
2. Defendant Hough
After finding that Mr. Murrill engaged in eight good faith
but unsuccessful attempts to effect personal service on Ms. Kelcie
Hough, the court granted Mr. Murrill’s motion for Alterative
Service on Ms. Hough. (ECF No. 76). Mr. Murrill then mailed the
summons and complaint to Ms. Hough’s address on April 22, 2020.
(See ECF No. 86, Exhibit A). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d), Ms.
Hough’s answer was due on May 16, 2020. Standing Order 2020-07

had the effect of extending this deadline to August 8, 2020. To
date, no appearance or answer on behalf of Ms. Hough has been
filed. Accordingly, Mr. Murrill’s motion for entry of default as
to Ms. Hough will be granted.

V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motions for entry of default
filed by Plaintiff will be granted, the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant Hickson will be denied and the motion to dismiss filed
by Defendant Wexford will be granted. A separate order will
follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10204374. Public record. Not legal advice.