Neal-Willams v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

RODJUAN ORLANDO JAMES

NEAL-WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: JRR-21-1893

v.

DR. WILSON, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this civil rights action, Plaintiff Rodjuan Orlando James Neal-Williams alleges that

Defendants Robin Cody, Jessica Moss, Angela Talley, Susan Malagari, Jada Sewell, Gulshan

Uddin, Umu Kabba, Gladys Onokoko-Othepa, Capt. Alinda Nash, and Lt. Patrick Bean (“County

Defendants”)1, and Sacari Thomas-Mohamed, M.D., and Keith Wilson, M.D. (Wellpath

Defendants”)2 failed to provide adequate medical care in violation of his Constitutional rights.3

The County Defendants have moved to dismiss the action or, alternatively, for summary judgment

in their favor. ECF No. 17. The Wellpath Defendants have moved to dismiss the action. ECF

No. 20. Neal-Williams opposes both motions. ECF Nos. 18, 23. Having reviewed the submitted

materials, the Court finds no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6 (2021). For the

reasons that follow, the pending dispositive motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

I. Plaintiff’s Allegations

The crux of Neal-Williams’ Complaint is the Defendants’ alleged failure to provide post-

operative medical treatment on his right hand. ECF No. 1. Neal-Williams states that he arrived at

1 The preceding Defendants are employed by Montgomery County, Maryland.

2 The preceding Defendants are employed by Wellpath Health.

3The Clerk shall be directed to correct the names of the Defendants on the docket.

rubber bands in his hand following a surgery in November of 2020 Id. at 2. The screws connected

to a brace with rubber bands to extend his fingers while undergoing physical therapy and preparing

for another surgery. Id. Upon processing into the facility, the rubber bands were put into a medical

property bag for the doctors to examine. Id. Neal-Williams contends that Dr. Wilson looked at

the rubber bands but did not give them back to him. He repeatedly requested he be provided rubber

bands and complained to nurses, correctional officers, and doctors about the need for the rubber

bands, but they were never returned to him. Id. at 2-3.

In addition to being denied his surgical rubber bands, Neal-Williams alleges that medical

staff failed to clean his screws daily to prevent infection, that he did develop an infection, and that

medical staff failed to treat the infection. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. When Neal-Williams saw his surgeon

on April 29, 2021, she removed the screws because of the infection and stated that he needed to

proceed with surgery scheduled for May 5, 2021, or attend regular occupational therapy. Id. at 4.

He also required antibiotics to treat the infection. Id. Neal-Williams states that it was only after

the screws were removed that he started receiving daily cleanings of the wounds. Id. Neal-

Williams states that he did not go to his scheduled surgery on May 5, 2021, and that he did not

attend occupational therapy. Id. at 5. He alleges that when he asked Dr. Mohamed about therapy,

he was told that they were trying to find a place for him to have therapy. Id. Neal-Williams alleges

that his surgeon had already made arrangements for therapy, so there was no reason for the delay.

Id. Neal-Williams prepared for surgery again on May 18, 2021, but that surgery was canceled. Id.

Dr. Mohamed allegedly told him the surgery was canceled because they were still looking for a

therapy provider. Id. Therapy was finally scheduled at the end of June, 2021, but the appointment

was canceled due to a court date. Id. at 6. Throughout this time, Neal-Williams contends that Dr.

Wilson and Dr. Mohamed denied him proper medication. Id. at 6.

inmate handbook upon his arrival at MCCF that would explain how to “take action.” ECF No. 1

at 3. He repeatedly asked corrections officers for a handbook, and they told him they could not

find one. Id. Upon finally learning about grievance forms, Neal-Williams says he filed several,

was told his issue was not grievable, and he appealed. Id. He alleges that he continued to submit

grievances and medical slips requesting proper medical treatment, to which he did not receive a

response. Id. at 6-7.

Because he did not name proper defendants in his initial Complaint, on August 24, 2021

Neal-Williams was directed to file a supplemental complaint naming each defendant and how they

were involved. ECF No. 3. Neal-Williams filed his supplement on September 27, 2021. ECF No.

5. In the supplement, Neal-Williams makes the following allegations as to each Defendant:

1. Dr. Wilson: When Neal-Williams arrived at MCCF, he saw Dr. Wilson and explained

his history of hand surgeries as well as his need for the rubber bands in preparation for

a surgery scheduled for May 5, 2021. ECF No. 5 at 2. He discussed his medications

with Dr. Wilson and gave him the name of his surgeon and pharmacy. Id. Dr. Wilson

told him he would get the rubber bands back, but he never did. Id. Dr. Wilson did not

order the proper medications. Id. Dr. Wilson told Neal-Williams that he could not

open his hand because of nerve damage whereas his diagnosis was contracture. Id.

Neal-Williams told Dr. Wilson of the importance of regularly cleaning the screws and

the need for therapy, but Dr. Wilson said that no therapy office wants inmates. Id. at

3. Neal-Williams contends that this was not true, because his surgeon had already made

arrangements for his therapy. ECF Nos. 1 at 4-5; 5 at 4.

2. Dr. Mohamed: Dr. Mohamed saw Neal-Williams several times when Neal-Williams

explained the pain he was in, the lack of rubber bands, the infection, lack of therapy,

notwithstanding the regular appointments. ECF No. 5 at 5. Neal-Williams alleges that

at a meeting on July 15, 2021, also attended by Defendants Robin Cody and Jada

Sewell, Dr. Mohamed stated that the surgical rubber bands were lost and that “we

messed up but now you have a therapy appointment schedule and follow up with your

surgeon so let’s focus on the future.” Id. at 6. Neal-Williams alleges that Dr. Mohamed

failed to comply with his surgeon’s orders. Id. at 7.

3. Robin Cody: Defendant Robin Cody was the medical supervisor, who should have

received the several grievance forms Neal-Williams submitted about his medical

concerns including not having surgery, not having therapy, missing rubber bands,

infections, and nurses and doctors not taking him seriously. ECF No. 5 at 8. Neal-

Williams contends that he has not received a response to any of these grievances. Id.

at 8-9. Neal-Williams also wrote a letter directly to Cody regarding his concerns, but

he did not receive an answer. Id. at 9. At the July 15, 2021 meeting, Cody showed him

a stack of his grievances, and stated that she will eventually answer them. Id. at 9-10.

At the meeting, Cody would not let Neal-Williams complain about “her doctors” and

said that they were not going to talk about the past now that a follow up with his surgeon

has been scheduled. Id. at 10. She showed him a letter from his surgeon stating that

he was no longer a candidate for surgery because of the failure to use the rubber bands

and the lack of physical therapy. Id. at 11. Cody told Neal-Williams that he was lucky

to even be getting medical attention because he is in jail. Id.

4. Jessica Moss: Defendant Jessica Moss handles inmate medical records and scheduling

for surgeries and other outside medical appointments. ECF No. 5 at 12. She failed to

arrange surgery dates or physical therapy dates and failed to coordinate dates with Neal-

access to his medical records. Id. at 12-13.

5. Angela Talley: Defendant Angela Talley is the director of the jail and her employees

are not doing their jobs correctly. ECF No. 5 at 14. Grievances are not being answered,

and staff are not taking medical concerns seriously or accurately documenting them.

Id. Neal-Williams also contends that he was never given an inmate handbook, which

was the fault of Talley’s employees. Id.

6. Susan Malagary: Defendant Malagary is the Warden of the jail and overseas

grievances and the work of her employees. ECF No. 5 at 15. She ignored Neal-

Williams’ many grievances regarding his serious medical concerns. Id. She did not

properly oversee her medical staff, who ignored Neal-Williams’ surgeon’s instructions.

Id.

7. Jada Sewell: Defendant Sewell took over Cody’s position as medical supervisor and

was in the meeting with Cody and Dr. Mohamed in which Neal-Williams discussed his

concerns and his many unanswered grievances. ECF No. 5 at 16.

8. Gulshan Uddin: Defendant Uddin was the first nurse Neal-Williams informed about

the infection he developed, to which she responded, “‘you’re not a doctor, don’t tell

me your hand is infected” and “say some prayer and read the Bible, you’ll be fine.”

ECF No. 5 at 17. She would not take his concerns seriously or put him on the doctor

list and did not properly document the record. Id.

9. Gladys Onokoko-Othepa: Defendant Onokoko-Othepa is a nurse who ignored Neal-

Williams’ pain and concerns regarding his hand. ECF No. 5 at 18. She continuously

refused to put him on the list to see the doctor. Id.

concerns about his medications. ECF No. 5 at 18. She refused to allow him to see the

doctor. Id.

11. Capt. Nash and Lt. Bean: Defendants Nash and Bean were the grievance form

coordinators. ECF No. 5 at 20. They did not act on the grievances or properly oversee

their corrections officers to ensure the grievances were handled properly. Id.

Neal-Williams attached copies of medical records and grievances to his Complaint. ECF

Nos. 1-1, 1-2. He requests money damages, physical therapy, and surgery. ECF No. 1 at 9.

II. Defendants’ Responses

In response, the County Defendants argue that Neal-Williams has not exhausted his

administrative remedies, that they were not deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need, and

that they are entitled to qualified immunity. ECF No. 17-1. Specifically, Defendants argue that

they could not be responsible for Neal-Williams’ lack of adequate medical care, to the extent that

he required medication, therapy, surgery, or outside appointments which they were not authorized

to provide. ECF No. 17-1 at 25. In support, they submitted the declaration of Diane Combes,

Clinical Nurse Manager, who declares that certain defendants cannot and do not provide medical

care to inmates, and that certain other defendants are licensed Registered Nurses but they are “not

licensed or permitted to prescribe or alter medication or order physical therapy, occupational

therapy, surgical procedures, or appointments with medical professionals outside the Department

of Correction and Rehabilitation.” ECF No. 17-2 at 2. The County Defendants did not submit

any medical records or the declarations of any defendant. Defendants submitted a copy of the

inmate-resident grievance procedures and guidelines in support of their argument that Neal-

Williams did not exhaust his administrative remedies, but they did not submit any documents or

No. 17-4.

The Wellpath Defendants argue that Neal-Williams failed to state a claim against them and

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. ECF No. 20-1. They attached copies of the medical

records and grievance forms submitted by Neal-Williams. ECF Nos. 20-3, 20-4, 20-5, 20-6, 20-

7, 20-8.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

The Wellpath Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failing to state a claim

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In reviewing the motion, the court accepts

the well-pleaded allegations as true and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bell Atl. Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). “However, conclusory statements or a ‘formulaic recitation

of the elements of a cause of action will not [suffice].’” EEOC v. Performance Food Grp., Inc.,

16 F. Supp. 3d 584, 588 (D. Md. 2014) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations

must be enough to raise a right to relief above a speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

“‘[N]aked assertions’ of wrongdoing necessitate some ‘factual enhancement’ within the complaint

to cross ‘the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Francis v.

Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

Although pro se pleadings are construed generously to allow for the development of a

potentially meritorious case, Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980), courts cannot ignore a clear

failure to allege facts setting forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d

387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990) (“The ‘special judicial solicitude’ with which a district court should view

such pro se complaints does not transform the court into an advocate. Only those questions which

are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed.”) (internal citation omitted)). “A

court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because

556 U.S. 662, 665 (2009).

The County Defendants’ 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 Dept., Inc. v. Montgomery County, 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, under Rule 12(b)(6), a court, in its discretion, may consider matters

outside of the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(d). If the court does so, “the motion must be treated

as one for summary judgment under Rule 56,” but “[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable

opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d); see

Adams Housing, LLC v. The City of Salisbury, Maryland, 672 F. App’x 220, 222 (4th Cir. Nov.

29, 2016) (per curiam). However, when the movant expressly captions its motion “in the

alternative” as one for summary judgment, and submits matters outside the pleadings for the

court’s consideration, the parties are deemed to be on notice that conversion under Rule 12(d) may

occur; the court “does not have an obligation to notify parties of the obvious.” Laughlin v. Metro.

Wash. Airports Auth., 149 F.3d 253, 261 (4th Cir. 1998).

Summary judgment is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), which provides, in part: “The

court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The Supreme Court has

clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will defeat the motion. “By its very terms,

this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties

will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is

247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).

“The party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest

upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,’ but rather must ‘set forth specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc.,

346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)), cert.

denied, 541 U.S. 1042 (2004). The court should “view the evidence in the light most favorable to

. . . the nonmovant, and draw all inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing

the witnesses’ credibility.” Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45

(4th Cir. 2002); see FDIC v. Cashion, 720 F.3d 169, 173 (4th Cir. 2013).

The district court’s “function” is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the

matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

Moreover, the trial court may not make credibility determinations on summary judgment. Jacobs

v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 569 (4th Cir. 2015); Mercantile

Peninsula Bank v. French, 499 F.3d 345, 352 (4th Cir. 2007); Black & Decker Corp. v. United

States, 436 F.3d 431, 442 (4th Cir. 2006); Dennis, 290 F.3d at 644-45. Therefore, in the face of

conflicting evidence, such as competing affidavits, summary judgment is generally not

appropriate, because it is the function of the fact-finder to resolve factual disputes, including

matters of witness credibility.

Nevertheless, to defeat summary judgment, conflicting evidence, if any, must give rise to

a genuine dispute of material fact. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. If “the evidence is such that

a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” then a dispute of material fact

precludes summary judgment. Id. at 248; see Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313

(4th Cir. 2013). On the other hand, summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence “is so one-

scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be

evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Id.

Because Neal-Williams is self-represented, his submissions are liberally construed. See

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But, the court must also abide by the “‘affirmative

obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding

to trial.’” Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Drewitt v. Pratt,

999 F.2d 774, 778–79 (4th Cir. 1993), and citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24

(1986)).

DISCUSSION

I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

All Defendants assert the affirmative defense that Neal-Williams failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies. ECF Nos. 17-1 at 11, 20-1 at 9. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act

of 1995 (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134 § 803, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (codified as amended at 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a)):

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of

this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) 2008). Inmates must exhaust administrative remedies before they bring any

“suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and

whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532

(2002).

Exhaustion is mandatory and generally may not be excused unless the administrative

procedure is not available. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858 (2016) (holding that an inmate

“must exhaust available remedies, but need not exhaust unavailable ones”). “[A]n administrative

prevented from availing himself of it.” Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2008). In

Ross, the United States Supreme Court identified three circumstances when an administrative

remedy is unavailable. An administrative procedure is not available when officers are consistently

unwilling or unable to provide relief to aggrieved inmates, the procedure is so opaque that it is

practically incapable of use, or prison administrators actively thwart inmates from filing

grievances. Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859-60.

MCCF has established a five-step inmate grievance procedure, set out in the Montgomery

County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Departmental Policy and Procedure

Handbook. ECF No. 17-4. Policy Number 3000-27 of the Departmental Policy and Procedure

Manual directs any inmate with a complaint to request an Inmate Grievance Form. ECF 17-4.

First, inmates must complete and return the form to a correctional staff member for review and

response. Id. at 4. Inmates may either accept or disagree with the action taken by the staff member.

Id. at 5. Second, if the inmate disagrees with the action, appropriate personnel have five working

days to conduct the same review process as the initial correctional staff member. Id. Third, if an

inmate disagrees with that determination, the inmate may appeal the decision to the appropriate

Section head or designee, who must respond within five working days. Id. at 5-6. Fourth, if the

inmate is dissatisfied with that response, the inmate may then appeal to the Warden for a review

to be completed within five working days. Id. at 6. Fifth, the Warden’s determination may be

appealed to the Department Director within five working days. Id. at 8-9.

A. County Defendants

Here, the County Defendants argue that Neal-Williams did not exhaust his administrative

remedies because he did not file a grievance against any particular county defendant regarding his

lack of adequate medical care. ECF No. 17-1 at 13. The County Defendants acknowledge that

grievances through the entire process. Instead, Defendants argue that because Neal-Williams did

not identify a particular defendant in a grievance, he has not exhausted his remedies as to that

defendant. Id. In support of this argument, defendants cite Heaton v. Wray, 2010 WL 5390118

(D.S.C. Nov. 10, 2010). In Heaton, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of two

defendants who were not named in the plaintiff’s grievance. Heaton, 2010 WL 5390118.

However, the court in Heaton noted that while it is not necessary to specifically name a defendant

in a grievance, the plaintiff must present “at least the essence of her claims.” Id. (citing Jones v.

Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218-219 (2007). “‘[I]nmates must provide enough information about the

conduct of which they complain to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive

measures.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691, 697 (2d Cir. 2004). The Fourth

Circuit has found that where the grievance process does not require the naming of particular

defendants, the exhaustion of administrative remedies does not require such specificity either.

Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 726 (4th Cir. 2008). The County Defendants argue that MCCF’s

administrative remedy procedure requires inmates to name a particular staff member. ECF No.

17-1 at 12, 17-4. The document lists a number of matters that are grievable, including “individual

employee and inmate/resident actions,” but also identifies many other issues for which individual

employees may be responsible but for which there is no requirement that the responsible party be

named. ECF No. 17-4 at 2-3. The document also states particular instructions “[i]f an

inmate/resident registers a complaint against a staff member,” implying that plenty of grievances

will not be against a particular staff member. If the grievance process at MCCF required naming

a specific person in the administrative process prior to filing a civil action, that requirement is not

at all clear. Neal-Williams submitted numerous grievances regarding both his medical care and

the lack of responses to grievances. ECF No. 1-2 at 1-4, 13-14. The “essence” of Neal-Williams’

there is nothing in the grievance policy and procedures that requires an inmate to name a specific

employee when filing a grievance.4 Therefore, it was not necessary for Neal-Williams to

individually name a particular employee in order to have exhausted his administrative remedies.

As Defendants present no other support for their affirmative defense, they have failed to show that

Neal-Williams’ claims are unexhausted and the Complaint will not be dismissed on that basis.

B. Wellpath Defendants

The Wellpath defendants also present the affirmative defense that Neal-Williams failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies; and they likewise do not present sufficient evidence to meet

their burden of proof.5 ECF No. 20-1 at 9. The Wellpath Defendants do not present any evidence

of their own. Instead, they rely on the grievances submitted by Neal-Williams, arguing that none

of those grievances “seeks a remedy akin to what is asserted against the Wellpath Defendants in

this case.” ECF Nos. 20-1 at 9; 1-2 at 1-4, 13-14. The Wellpath Defendants do not state whether

Neal-Williams filed any other grievances or whether he appealed them through the entire process.

In fact, the Wellpath Defendants note that a grievance presented by Neal-Williams “provides no

evidence that the Plaintiff pursued this grievance through additional administrative action,”

erroneously shifting the burden to Neal-Williams when it is The Wellpath Defendants’ obligation

to prove they are entitled to the affirmative defense put forth. ECF No. 20-1 at 10. Nevertheless,

the grievances in the record, which the Wellpath Defendants do not suggest were not pursued

through all levels of appeal, very clearly complain about the lack of adequate medical care. ECF

4 Notably, Neal-Williams alleges in his Complaint that he tried and failed to acquire a copy of the inmate handbook

that he was supposed to receive upon his arrival at MCCF. ECF No. 1 at 3. If true, he had no notice of the

requirements, and the process was arguably unavailable to him.

5 Neal-Williams may not be required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit against contracted medical

service providers such as the Wellpath Defendants. Maryland state prisoners are not required to exhaust administrative

remedies before bringing a civil suit against a private medical services provider under contract with the Division of

Corrections. Adamson v. Correctional Medical Services, 359 Md. 238 (2000). MCCF’s grievance policy does not

specifically mention medical complaints.

a § 1983 claim in a grievance. The Wellpath Defendants have not shown that Neal-Williams failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit; therefore, the Complaint will not be

dismissed on that basis.

II. Fourteenth Amendment Claims

Neal-Williams is a pre-trial detainee. As such, his § 1983 claims fall under the Due Process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The constitutional protections afforded a pre-trial detainee

as provided by the Fourteenth Amendment are co-extensive with those provided by the Eighth

Amendment.” Barnes v. Wilson, 110 F.Supp.3d 624, 629 (D. Md. 2015) (citing Bell v. Wolfish,

441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979)). “Pretrial detainees are entitled to at least the same protection under

the Fourteenth Amendment as are convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment.” Young v.

City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp.,

463 U.S. 239, 243-44 (1983); Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991-92 (4th Cir. 1992). Thus,

deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a pretrial detainee violates the Due Process

Clause. Id. (citing County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-46 (1998) (concluding that,

because it is sufficient for liability under the Eighth Amendment, “deliberately indifferent conduct

must also be enough to satisfy the fault requirement for due process claims based on the medical

needs of someone jailed while awaiting trial”); Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir.1999)

(applying deliberate indifference standard to pretrial detainee's claim that he was denied needed

medical treatment), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1067 (2000); Belcher v. Oliver, 898 F.2d 32, 34 (4th

Cir.1990) (“The Fourteenth Amendment right of pretrial detainees, like the Eighth Amendment

right of convicted prisoners, requires that government officials not be deliberately indifferent to

any serious medical needs of the detainee.”)). The Fourth Circuit has held that, though the precise

scope of a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights is “unclear,” a violation can be made

serious medical needs” under cases interpreting the Eighth Amendment. Mays v. Sprinkle, 992

F.3d 295, 300 (4th Cir. 2021).

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” by virtue of

its guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976);

see also Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002); Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 225 (4th

Cir. 2016); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 218 (4th Cir. 2016). “Scrutiny under the Eighth

Amendment is not limited to those punishments authorized by statute and imposed by a criminal

judgment.” De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501

U.S. 294, 297 (1991)); accord Anderson v. Kingsley, 877 F.3d 539, 543 (4th Cir. 2017). To state

an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the

actions of the defendants, or their failure to act, amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious

medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); see also Anderson, 877 F.3d at

543. 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 either to provide it or to ensure it was available.

See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-7 (1994); see also Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons,

849 F.3d 202, 209-10 (4th Cir. 2017); King, 825 F.3d at 218; Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th

Cir. 2008). Objectively, the medical condition at issue must be serious. See Hudson v. McMillian,

503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (there is no expectation that prisoners will be provided with unqualified access

to health care); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014). Proof of an objectively

serious medical condition, however, does not end the inquiry.

The subjective component requires “subjective recklessness” in the face of the serious

medical condition. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839, 840; see also Anderson, 877 F.3d at 544. Under

harm’ and ‘subjectively recognized that his[/her] actions were inappropriate in light of that risk.’”

Anderson, 877 F.3d at 545 (quoting Parrish ex rel. Lee v. Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 303 (4th Cir.

2004)); see also Rich v. Bruce, 129 F.3d 336, 340 n.2 (4th Cir. 1997) (“True subjective recklessness

requires knowledge both of the general risk, and also that the conduct is inappropriate in light of

that risk.”). “Actual knowledge or awareness on the part of the alleged inflicter . . . becomes

essential to proof of deliberate indifference ‘because prison officials who lacked knowledge of a

risk cannot be said to have inflicted punishment.’” Brice v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr., 58 F.3d 101,

105 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844).

The subjective knowledge requirement can be met through direct evidence of actual

knowledge or through circumstantial evidence tending to establish such knowledge, including

evidence “that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was

obvious.” Scinto, 841 F.3d at 226 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842). If the requisite subjective

knowledge is established, an official may avoid liability “if [he] responded reasonably to the risk,

even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844; see also Cox v. Quinn,

828 F.3d 227, 236 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[A] prison official’s response to a known threat to inmate

safety must be reasonable.”). Reasonableness of the actions taken must be judged in light of the

risk the defendant actually knew at the time. See Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 390 (4th Cir.

2001) (citing Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that focus must be on

precautions actually taken in light of suicide risk, not those that could have been taken)) see also

Jackson, 775 F.3d at 179 (holding that physician’s act of prescribing treatment raises fair inference

that he believed treatment was necessary and that failure to provide it would pose an excessive

risk).

1. Personal Participation and Supervisory Liability

Liability under § 1983 attaches only upon personal participation by a defendant in the

constitutional violation. Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001). County Defendants

Sewell, Officer Nash, Officer Bean, Director Talley, and Warden Malagari argue that the

Complaint fails to state a claim against them because it does not allege they were personally

involved in the violation of constitutional rights. ECF No. 17-1 at 20. The County Defendants

further argue that Neal-Williams has failed to state a claim of supervisory liability against

defendants Cody, Warden Malagari, and Director Talley. Id. at 21.

It is well established that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in § 1983

claims. See Love-Lane v. Martin, 355 F.3d 766, 782 (4th Cir. 2004) (no respondeat superior

liability under § 1983); see also Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001) (no respondeat

superior liability in a Bivens suit). Liability of supervisory officials “is not based on ordinary

principles of respondeat superior, but rather is premised on ‘a recognition that supervisory

indifference or tacit authorization of subordinates’ misconduct may be a causative factor in the

constitutional injuries they inflict on those committed to their care.’” Baynard v. Malone, 268

F.3d 228, 235 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372 (4th Cir. 1984)).

Supervisory liability under § 1983 must be supported with evidence that: (1) the supervisor had

actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed a

pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) the

supervisor's response to the knowledge was so inadequate as to show deliberate indifference to or

tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices; and (3) there was an affirmative causal link

between the supervisor's inaction and the particular constitutional injury suffered by the plaintiff.

See Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1994).

allege personal participation on their part or make a showing of supervisory liability. Neal-

Williams’ only allegations against Warden Malagari and Director Talley are that they failed to

properly supervise their employees. This respondeat superior theory of liability is not tenable

under § 1983. Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed as to those Defendants.

Likewise, Neal-Williams’ claims against Officer Bean and Officer Nash do not sufficiently

allege either personal participation or supervisory liability in his alleged lack of adequate medical

care. The officers are only alleged to have ignored grievances regarding medical issues or failed

to ensure that the grievances were forwarded. ECF No. 5 at 20. Non-medical officials are entitled

to rely on the professional judgment of medical staff. Mullins v. Clear, 2021 WL 5299665 at *5

(D. W.V. Nov. 15, 2021) (citing Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002) and

Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 543 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that non-medical officials

“cannot be considered deliberately indifferent simply because they failed to respond directly to the

medical complaints of a prisoner who was already being treated by the prison doctor”). The

Complaint will be dismissed as to Defendants Officer Bean and Officer Nash.

Finally, Defendants Cody and Sewell are alleged to be the medical supervisors who were

in receipt of Neal-Williams’ numerous sick call requests and grievances and who attended a

meeting along with him and Dr. Mohamed regarding his care. ECF No. 5 at 8, 16. Neal-Williams

alleges he sent multiple grievances about his lack of medical care, which the medical supervisors

should have received and addressed. Id. He alleges further that Cody and Sewell participated in

a meeting with Dr. Mohamed regarding Neal-Williams’ medical care. Id.

As to Defendant Cody, Neal-Williams makes sufficient allegations that she was personally

involved in his struggle to get proper medical treatment. He alleges that she knew about his serious

medical needs as the medical supervisor in receipt of his many grievances and medical requests,

is apparent through her participation in the meeting with Neal-Williams and Dr. Mohamed where

she allegedly told Neal-Williams not to worry about the past and not to complain about her doctors,

had a stack of grievances at the meeting but had not answered them, showed Neal-Williams a copy

of a letter from his surgeon advising that he was no longer a candidate for surgery, and discussed

future plans for medical treatment. ECF No. 5 at 10-11. Neal-Williams has alleged sufficient

personal participation on the part of Defendant Cody.

As to Defendant Sewell, Neal-Williams alleges that she took over from Defendant Cody

as medical supervisor, attended the July 15, 2021 meeting with Dr. Mohamed in a training

capacity, and failed to answer grievances when she became the medical supervisor sometime

thereafter. ECF No. 5 at 6, 16. However, Neal-Williams does not allege that Defendant Sewell

actively participated in the meeting, when she became the medical supervisor, if and when she

became responsible for answering grievances on medical issues, or if any grievances were filed

during the time she served as medical director.6 Therefore, the Complaint will be dismissed as to

Defendant Sewell.

2. Summary Judgment

The County Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor

because the evidence in the record demonstrates that “they did not possess the necessary medical

licensure or authority to prescribe or alter medication or refer, or order physical therapy,

occupational therapy, surgical procedures, or appointments with medical professionals located

outside the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.” ECF No. 17-1 at 25 (citing ECF No.

17-2). Defendants do not contest that Neal-Williams had a serious medical need. Instead,

Defendants appear to suggest that because these Defendants could not personally provide

6 The Complaint was filed on July 28, 2021, less than two weeks following the meeting at which Sewell was still a

trainee.

indifferent to his serious medical needs. This argument is specious; there is no requirement in the

deliberate indifference standard that a defendant be able to personally provide required medical

treatment. The County Defendants’ only other argument is that Neal-Williams’ refutes his own

allegations by admission that he was “provided consistent and ongoing medical care during his

detention at MCCF, was housed in the medical department unit so that he could get better access

to care, was prescribed and provided medication, attended numerous appointments and meetings

with medical staff at MCCF, had his off-site therapy scheduled by MCCF staff, [and] attended

appointments with his surgeon, Sophia Strike, M.D. at Johns Hopkins University Hospital, with

transport facilitated by MCCF.” ECF No. 17-1 at 7. The County Defendants, however offer no

explanation why, notwithstanding this “regular and consistent care,” Neal-Williams allegedly

never received his surgical bands, never had his screws cleaned, acquired an infection and had to

have the screws prematurely removed, and did not attend therapy or undergo surgery in a timely

fashion. Neal-Williams’ describes with specificity the manner in which he contends each of the

County Defendants was involved in the alleged lack of adequate medical care. Nothing in the

record that directly refutes those allegations. ECF No. 5. There remains a genuine issue of material

fact as to whether Defendants Robin Cody, Gulshan Uddin, Umu Kabba, and Gladys Onokoko-

Othepa were deliberately indifferent to Neal-Williams’ serious medical needs. As such, The

County Defendants’ Motion, construed as a motion for summary judgment, will be denied as to

these Defendants.

B. Wellpath Defendants

The Wellpath Defendants argue that Neal-Williams failed to state a claim against them.

They do not argue for summary judgment in the alternative. The Wellpath Defendants argue that

“[r]egardless of the facts alleged in the Complaint, the contents of MCCF medical records Plaintiff

Defendants.” ECF No. 20-1 at 7. The Wellpath Defendants imply that Neal-Williams has stated

a claim in his Complaint, but that the attached medical records defeat that claim. To the contrary,

Neal-Williams’ allegations that both doctors knew of his need for surgical rubber bands, daily

cleanings, pain medication, and urgent surgery and/or therapy failed to take sufficient action to

ensure any of those was accomplished is not contradicted by the documents he submitted. While

the doctors saw him on several occasions, the records do not show that any of his claimed needs

were met.

As to Defendant Dr. Wilson, Neal-Williams alleges the doctor was the first person he

encountered when he arrived at MCCF on April 16, 2021, that he explained in detail the need for

the rubber bands and the need to have the pins regularly cleaned, but that Dr. Wilson failed to

ensure either of those things happened. ECF No. 5 at 2. In addition, Neal-Williams alleges that

Dr. Wilson failed to arrange therapy for him because “no office wants inmates inside,”

notwithstanding his surgeon having already arranged it. Id. at 4. He also alleges that Dr. Wilson

would not prescribe necessary medication. Id. Taken as true, these allegations are sufficient to

form the basis of a § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference.

Similarly, Neal-Williams alleges that Dr. Mohamed saw him several times but failed to

provide necessary medical care. ECF No. 5 at 5. He alleges that he asked Dr. Mohamed why he

did not have his rubber bands and why his screws were not being cleaned, and she told him she

did not know. ECF No. 1 at 4. He further alleges that he told her he needed to be in therapy due

to his canceled surgery and to which she responded that his surgery was canceled because there

was no place to go for post-operative therapy. Id. He alleges that he repeatedly told Dr. Mohamed

and Dr. Wilson that the medication they gave him was ineffective because it is for nerve pain,

which he does not have, and that Dr. Mohamed told him, “you’re going to have pain.” Id. at 6.

medical need, as she allegedly saw Neal-Williams multiple times but took no action to ensure he

was provided with proper medication, proper surgical equipment, therapy, or surgery.

Because Neal-Williams has stated a § 1983 claim against the Wellpath Defendants, their

Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied.

III. Qualified Immunity

Lastly, the County Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Government officials

sued in their individual capacity may invoke qualified immunity. Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368,

391 (4th Cir. 2013). “Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil damages in a §

1983 action insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. (quoting Edwards v. City of

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 250 (4th Cir. 1999)). To overcome a claim of qualified immunity from

a § 1983 claim, there must be a showing that (1) the government official violated a federally

protected right of the plaintiff; and (2) the identified right was clearly established at the time of the

alleged misconduct, in that a “reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates

that right.” Id. Because one of the purposes of qualified immunity is to “protect public officials

from the ‘broad-ranging discovery’ that can be ‘peculiarly disruptive of effective government,’”

the United States Supreme Court has “emphasized that qualified immunity questions should be

resolved at the earliest possible stage of a litigation.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646

n.6 (1987) (citations omitted); Wilson v. Kittoe, 337 F.3d 392, 391 (4th Cir. 2003). If the court

determines that the government official took actions that a reasonable officer could have believed

were lawful, then the official is entitled to dismissal before discovery. Id.

Neal-Williams alleges The County Defendants knew his right hand had surgical screws,

required surgical rubber bands which were missing, required urgent surgery and/or physical or

ensure Neal-Williams serious medical needs were met. Construed in the light most favorable to

Neal-Williams, the conduct at issue amounts to deliberate interference to Neal-Williams’ serious

medical need. Unquestionably, it is well established that such conduct violates the Fourteenth

Amendment. Therefore, based on the record presently before the court, The County Defendants

are not entitled to qualified immunity.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the dispositive motions are granted in part and denied in part.

The Wellpath Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied. The County Defendants Warden Malagari,

Director Talley, Officer Bean, Officer Nash, and Jada Sewell’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the

Alternative, for Summary Judgment is granted. County Defendants Robin Cody, Gulshan Uddin,

Umu Kabba, and Gladys Onokoko-Othepa’s Motion for to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for

Summary Judgment, construed as a motion for summary judgment, is denied. Plaintiff will be

given 28 days in which to file a motion to appoint counsel. An order follows.

_____8.26.2022___________ ____________/S/_________________

Date Julie R. Rubin

United States District Judge