Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McClary v. Kalinski

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

August 21, 2019

RONALD McCLARY, Plaintiff,
v.
MARTA KALINSKI, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

          Martin Reidinger, Judge

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Marta Kalinski M.D.'s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25].

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Plaintiff Ronald McClary, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the violation of his civil rights while incarcerated at the Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander C.I.”). [Doc. 1]. The Complaint asserts claims of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Alexander C.I. employees Marta Kalinski, M.D. (“Dr. Kalinski”), Christina Fox (“Nurse Supervisor Fox”), and Cassandra S. Lor (“Dietician Lor”). [Doc. 10]. Dr. Kalinski now moves to dismiss the claims against her pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 25].

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The central issue for resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the claims state a plausible claim for relief. See Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 189 (4th Cir. 2009). In considering the Defendant's motion, the Court accepts the allegations in the Complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009); Giacomelli, 588 F.3d at 190-92. When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court is obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally, “however inartfully pleaded[.]” Booker v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 855 F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 755 (2018) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 755 (2018).

         Although the Court must accept any well-pleaded facts as true and construe such facts liberally, it is not required to accept “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement....” Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255; see also Giacomelli, 588 F.3d at 189.

         The claims need not contain “detailed factual allegations, ” but must contain sufficient factual allegations to suggest the required elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256. “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor will mere labels and legal conclusions suffice. Id. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         The complaint is required to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974; see also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255. The mere possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient for a claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256; Giacomelli, 588 F.3d at 193. Ultimately, the well-pled factual allegations must move a plaintiff's claim from possible to plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256.

         III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Construing the well-pled factual allegations of the Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, the following is a summary of the relevant facts.

         At the time of the events alleged, the Plaintiff was a state prisoner in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety - Division of Adult Correction at Alexander C.I. [Doc. 1 at 2]. The Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Kalinski, while acting in her official capacity, directed that the Plaintiff be fed Nutraloaf for a period of seven days, despite knowing that the Plaintiff required a special diet due to a number of medical conditions, including hypertension, pre-diabetes, GERD, and H. Pylori. [Id. at 4]. The Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the foregoing conduct by Dr. Kalinski, he experienced stomach problems, pain, loss of weight, and increased urination. [Doc. 1 at 8].

         The Plaintiff further alleges that from the time that he arrived at Alexander C.I. on May 4, 2018, to the date of the filing of the Complaint, he had not been seen by Dr. Kalinski, even though he has an “enlarged prostate and a bladder problem” and had requested a series of sick calls. [Id. at 4].

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.