United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
PARADISE BAXTER United States Magistrate Judge.
Relevant Procedural and Factual History
December 14, 2015, Plaintiff, Devin O'Grady, an inmate
incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest
in Marienville, Pennsylvania (“SCI-Forest”),
initiated this civil rights action by filing a pro
se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Named as
Defendants to this action are: Nurse Eileen Summers
("Summers") and Nurse Sherry Hoffman
("Hoffman"). Plaintiff alleges Defendants were
deliberately indifferent towards his serious medical needs.
September 24, 2015, at 6:00 am, Plaintiff alleges he began
experiencing abnormal swelling and severe pain in his left
hand. (ECF No. 3, ¶ 2). Plaintiff contends he informed a
correctional officer of the issue but the medical department
refused to provide assistance for him. (Id. at
¶¶ 3-4). Several hours later, Defendant Summers
went to Plaintiff's housing unit to deliver medications
to other inmates. (Id. at ¶ 8). Plaintiff
contends he told Defendant Summers of his excruciating pain,
as well as the condition of his hand and arm, which continued
to swell and form red striations. (Id. at ¶
8-10). However, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Summers
“shrugged her shoulders and walked away from Plaintiff
without providing him any medical treatment.”
(Id., ¶ 12).
continued to make complaints to SCI-Forest staff throughout
the day until he was taken to the medical department at 5:00
pm. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17). There, Plaintiff
met Defendant Hoffman, who stated there was nothing she could
do other than to leave a note for the doctor to see Plaintiff
the following day. (Id. at ¶ 19). Plaintiff
alleges Defendant Hoffman did not examine Plaintiff or check
for vitals but instead sent Plaintiff back to his cell.
(Id. at ¶¶ 21, 23).
September 25, 2015, SCI-Forest's Doctor Pavock examined
Plaintiff and prescribed antibiotics for his arm and hand.
(Id. at ¶ 31). Two days later, Plaintiff was
transported to a local hospital where he was diagnosed with
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(“MRSA”), and he ultimately required surgery to
have the infection removed. (Id. at ¶¶
claims that Defendants' lack of medical assistance on
September 24, 2015, constituted deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs, causing him an unnecessary
infliction of severe pain, in violation of the eighth
amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Plaintiff fails to
state a claim. [ECF No. 13]. Despite having ample time to do
so, Plaintiff has neither filed an opposition brief nor
requested an extension of time within which to do so. Thus,
the Court will deem Defendant's motion to dismiss
unopposed by Plaintiff, and this matter is now ripe for
Standards of Review
Motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff and all the well-pleaded allegations of the
complaint must be accepted as true. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). A complaint must be
dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not allege
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (rejecting the
traditional 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). See also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(specifically applying
Twombly analysis beyond the context of the Sherman
need not accept inferences drawn by a plaintiff if they are
unsupported by the facts as set forth in the complaint.
See California Pub. Employee Ret. Sys. V. The Chubb
Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) citing Morse
v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.
1997). Nor must the Court accept legal conclusions set forth
as factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,
citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986).
See also McTernan v. City of York, Pennsylvania, 577
F.3d 521, 531 (3d Cir. 2009)(“The tenet that a court
must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”). A
plaintiff's factual allegations “must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, citing 5 C.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004).
Although the United States Supreme Court does “not
require heightened fact pleading of specifics, [the Court
does require] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
other words, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff is
“required to make a ‘showing' rather than a
blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief.”
Smith v. Sullivan, 2008 WL 482469, at *1 (D.Del.)
quoting Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d
224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). “This ‘does not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage, ' but
instead ‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of
the necessary element.” Phillips, 515 F.3d at
234, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n.3.
Third Circuit expounded on the Twombly/Iqba ...