United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Marta
Kalinski M.D.'s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 25].
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].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
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.
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
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
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.
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.
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].
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].