Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180323_0000414.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:43:32+00:00

Document:
BRADFORD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, et al, Defendants.
Plaintiff D'Metruis Woodward, initiated this pro se action on February 24, 2017, by submitting for filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a complaint, in the District Court of New Jersey.
Judge Noel L. Hillman ordered that the case be transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania. ECF No. 2. The case was then transferred to this district and assigned to the Erie Division on February 28, 2017.
As Defendants to this action, Plaintiff names Bradford Regional Medical Center, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Correctional Officer Frantz, Emergency Medical Technician Robert Mosher and Dr. Brian Walters. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs, and delayed necessary treatment during his incarceration at the Federal Correctional Institution, McKean (“FCI - McKean”). As relief, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the acts and omissions of Defendants constitute a violation of his constitutional rights, as well as monetary damages.
Defendant Dr. Walters has filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 26]; Defendant Bradford Regional Medical Center has filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 29]; Defendants Frantz and Mosher, both employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, have filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 31]. Later, Bradford Regional Medical Center and Dr. Walters filed motions for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff failed to file a Certificate of Merit pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3 as to his potential professional liability claims. ECF No. 40; ECF No. 47.
Following the filing of the motions to dismiss, this Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motions, and advised Plaintiff of the possibility that this Court may consider Defendants' alternative request for entry of summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Renchenski v. Williams, 622 F.3d 315, 340 (3d Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff filed an opposition brief addressing some of the pending dispositive motions. ECF No. 35. Accordingly, these motions are ripe for disposition by this Court.
Pro se pleadings, “however inartfully pleaded, ” must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). If the court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969) (petition prepared by a prisoner may be inartfully drawn and should be read “with measure of tolerance”). Under our liberal pleading rules, a district court should construe all allegations in a complaint in favor of the complainant. Gibbs v. Roman, 116 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307, 311 (3d Cir. 2001); see e.g., Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) (discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard); Markowitz v. Ne. Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1990) (same). Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this Court may consider facts and make inferences when appropriate.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.