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.

Thompson v. Wiedemann

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

December 14, 2017

ANTHONY L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. WIEDEMANN, et. al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS)

          HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Anthony L. Thompson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.[1] Thompson contends that Defendants[2] denied him adequate dental care during his incarceration in the Greensville Correctional Center ("GCC"). The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) filed by Defendants Dr. Wiedemann, DDS, and Dr. Barnwell, DDS ("Defendants"). Thompson has responded. (ECF No. 26.) For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

         I. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS

         "A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing 5 A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1356 (1990)). In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations are taken as true and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Martin, 980 F.2d at 952. This principle applies only to factual allegations, however, and "a court considering a motion to dismiss can choose to begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "require[] only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this standard with complaints containing only "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Id. (citations omitted). Instead, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, " id. (citation omitted), stating a claim that is "plausible on its face, " id. at 570, rather than merely "conceivable." Id. "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 (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). In order for a claim or complaint to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, therefore, the plaintiff must "allege facts sufficient to state all the elements of [his or] her claim." Bass v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 765 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Dickson v. Microsoft Corp... 309 F.3d 193, 213 (4th Cir. 2002); Iodice v. United States, 289 F.3d 270, 281 (4th Cir. 2002)). Lastly, while the Court liberally construes pro se complaints, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978), it does not act as the inmate's advocate, sua sponte developing statutory and constitutional claims the inmate failed to clearly raise on the face of his complaint. See Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1997) (Luttig, J., concurring); Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

         II. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ALLEGATIONS

         In his Complaint (ECF No. I), [3] Thompson alleges that Defendants denied him adequate dental care during his incarceration in the GCC, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.[4] As relevant to the Motion to Dismiss, Thompson alleges:[5]

Plaintiff arrived at Greensville Correctional Center in December 2013. There was no oral exam performed by dental upon arrival. Violating dental operating procedure 720.6.
On September 08, 2014, after submitting numerous requests, and grievance forms for pain, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Wiedemann who performed S.O.A.P. procedure according to dental operating procedure 720.6. He then had Plaintiff scheduled to have #31 restored.
On October 20, 2014, Dr. Wiedemann partially restored #18, #19. These teeth were not causing pain. He applied a desensitizing agent to #31. He did not restore it as scheduled.
On June 21, 2015, Plaintiff submitted [an] informal complaint to address pain due to not being scheduled accordingly.
On June 30, 2015, Dental Assistant R. Allen responded, "You were Dr. Wiedemann's patient, who is no longer here ...." On August 17, 2015, Plaintiff submitted [an] informal complaint about pain from ear and headaches caused by infected tooth.
On August, 20, 2015, Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance (#82535) because of the constant pain and lack of appetite. Was later treated as a non-emergency.

(Compl. Attach. 3-4.)

On January 21, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance. On the same day, Plaintiff was diagnosed as having an abscess. Plaintiff was placed on antibiotics, and Ibuprofen, and was scheduled for [an] extraction.
On March 24, 2016, Plaintiff submitted emergency grievance (see exhibit C) and complained of pain coming from the abscess diagnosed by defendant Dr. Brown.
Response: Does not meet the definition of an emergency, "We will bring you over today for an evaluation." If not an emergency, why have Plaintiff over to evaluate a problem already diagnosed?
On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance because of pain from abcess [sic]. Defendant Dr. Brown prescribed a lower dosage of the same prescription and ...

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.