Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JOAN KREMPA, #925192, Plaintiff, v. CARROLL PARRISH, WARDEN, and DR. JADA SINGH, Defendants.

* * * * * ****** MEMORANDUM CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-11-2597

Plaintiff has filed suit against medical defendant Jada Singh, M.D.1 and correctional defendant Warden Carroll Parrish, complaining that on January 23, 2011, she fell on her knee as a result of a water leak at the institution, which was "allowed to fester over the years," and that, despite extreme swelling and pain, Dr. Singh repeatedly dismissed her injury and the need for treatment. ECF 1, as supplemented in ECF 5. Defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and have submitted numerous exhibits. See ECF 9, 15.2 Plaintiff has responded to the motions. See ECF 13, 14.3 Dr. Singh filed a reply, ECF 17, and plaintiff subsequently submitted additional responses. See ECF 3, 19, 20. Because materials outside the four corners of the pleadings have been submitted, I shall
1 2

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the full name of this defendant.

Defense counsel has also responded on behalf of Dr. Singh's employer, Corizon, Inc., f/k/a Correctional Medical Services Inc., ECF 9, although Corizon was not directly named as a defendant. See Powell v. Shopco Laurel Co., 678 F.2d 504, 506 (4th Cir. 1982); McIlwain v. Prince William Hospital, 774 F.Supp. 986, 990 (E.D.Va. 1991). Plaintiff was given notice of her rights and responsibilities in accordance with the requirements of Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F. 2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975). See ECF 10, 16. The Court is mindful that plaintiff is without counsel. Therefore, her pleadings have been liberally construed. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007).
3

construe the defense motions as motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Bosiger v. U.S. Airways, 510 F.3d 442, 450 (4th Cir. 2007). Upon review of all the submissions, the Court finds that a hearing in this matter unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). In ECF 14, at 2, plaintiff also requested appointment of counsel. A federal district judge's power to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C.

Download Joan Krempa v. Carroll Parrish, Warden, and Dr. Jada Singh.pdf

Maryland Law