John P. Jandrew v. Doctor Corigan, Medical Director, Well Path, DOE Discovery,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA JOHN P. JANDREW, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:23CV800 ) DOCTOR CORIGAN, MEDICAL ) DIRECTOR, Well Path, DOE ) DISCOVERY, OFFICER ORTEGA, ) OFFICER BAILEY, member of Perk ) Team, OFFICER KEHELY, and ) OFFICER LENARD, MDO, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE In July 2021, John P. Jandrew was a RCDC before filing suit in federal pre-trial detainee at the Rowan court, and he failed to do so.

County Detention Center (“RCDC”) Therefore, this Court dismissed all when, as he alleged, correction claims against the Officer Defendants, officers used excessive force against as well as claims against the him and Doctor Corigan1 (“Dr. defendants identified as “Medical Corrigan”) was deliberately Director” and “Doe Discovery.” See indifferent to his need for hip Order and R. & R. of the United States replacement surgery. See Compl. & Magistrate Judge, Docket Entry 34, Supp., Docket Entries 2, 3; Add’l adopted, Order, Docket Entry 48 Supp., Docket Entry 36 (collectively (“Dismissal Order”). That left Dr. “Amended Complaint”). He then Corrigan as the only remaining sued the correction officers and Dr. defendant.

Corrigan pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages. The plaintiff prematurely appealed the Dismissal Order which stayed the But the law requires the plaintiff to matter before this court. See Text have exhausted his remedies at the Order Staying Case (Feb. 21, 2025).

1 Doctor Corigan’s name is properly Corrigan’s Mot. to Dismiss, Docket Entry spelled Corrigan. See Kevin John 50.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals • Motion for Leave to Amend dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal for Complaint/Amended lack of jurisdiction and issued its Complaint, Docket Entry 61; mandate on December 16, 2025.

Docket Entries 74–76. • Rules 59 and 60 Motion, Docket Entry 63; Therefore, now before the Court are the following twelve motions: • Motion for Temporary Restraining Order • Motion for Summary (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction, Judgment, Docket Entry 33; Docket Entry 68; and • Motion to Appoint Counsel, • Motion to Renew Prior Filings Docket Entry 37; Pertaining to Defendant Corrigan, Docket Entry 77. • Motion for Entry of Default Against Kevin Corigan, Docket In sum, the plaintiff’s lawsuit survives Entry 38; as to the defendant, Dr. Corrigan. The Court will direct the United States • Motion to Implement North Marshals Service effect service on Carolina’s Waiver of PLRA him. The Court will not appoint Affirmative Defense, Docket counsel for the plaintiff, nor grant his Entry 40; motion for a default judgment against the as-yet-unserved defendant. And • Rule 56(d) Motion, Docket finally, the Court recommends that all Entry 41; other pending dispositive motions be denied. • Kevin John Corrigan’s Motion I. DISCUSSION to Dismiss, Docket Entry 50;

A. The Court grants the • Motion for a Court Order for plaintiff’s motion to renew the Jai[l] to Provide Legal his prior filings, Docket Materials/Motion for Entry 77.

Appointment of Counsel, Docket Entry 58; After the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiff’s • Motion for Copies and to have appeal, but before it issued its Marshals Effectuate Service mandate, the plaintiff moved to renew upon Defendant’s Counsel the motions on which the Court had Jennifer B. Milak the Amended yet to rule at the time of the appeal, Complaint with Leave, Docket Docket Entry 77. The Fourth Circuit Entry 59; Court of Appeals has issued its mandate, and all pending motions are Complaint and entered a final before the Court. The plaintiff’s judgment. This is not so. motion is granted.

When a party fails to file a response B. The Court grants the brief, or, in this case, fails to file a plaintiff’s motion for leave response brief addressing the motion, to amend the Amended the Court will “consid[er] and Complaint, Docket Entry 61. decide[]” the motion “as an uncontested motion,” and will The plaintiff seeks leave to amend his “ordinarily . . . grant[] [the motion] Amended Complaint2 “(1) to rectify without further leave.” L.R. 7.3(k). the service issue; (2) to change the Thus, the Court could grant the damages amount as he suffered for plaintiff’s motion without further several additional months after filing assessment, but the merits of the this action; (3) to clarify Defendant motion also support granting of leave.

Corrigan’s actions; (4) to clear up Defendant Corrigan’s identity.” Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Docket Entry 61 ¶ 5. Civil Procedure instructs courts to “freely give leave [to amend a Dr. Corrigan opposes the plaintiff’s complaint] when justice so requires.”3 motion, see Docket Entry 62, but A court may deny leave when the bases his argument on proceedings amendment would be futile, meaning that have nothing to do with this it is “clearly insufficient or frivolous action and the erroneous assertion on its face” or “the claim it presents that this Court lacks jurisdiction over would not survive a motion to this matter. Dr. Corrigan describes dismiss.” Save Our Sound OBX, Inc. another case in which the Fourth v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 914 F.3d 213, Circuit Court of Appeals 228 (4th Cir. 2019). administratively closed the appeal which, according to Dr. Corrigan, Here, the plaintiff alleges that Dr. results in that court maintaining Corrigan was acting under color of jurisdiction over this matter. If this state law when he was deliberately Court has jurisdiction, Dr. Corrigan indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious argues that this Court dismissed the medical needs. See Mot. for Leave to Amend Compl./Amended Compl. at ¶¶ 16–23. Although the plaintiff brings this claim under the Fourth, The “Amended Complaint” is the initial infra at 6, the plaintiff may also Complaint, Docket Entries 2 and 3, plus alternatively have leave to amend his the Supplement to the initial Complaint, Amended Complaint as a matter of Docket Entry 36. course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

3 Considering that the plaintiff never effectuated service on Dr. Corrigan, see Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as a pre-trial detainee, The plaintiff’s motion for leave is the Due Process Clause of the granted. Pages 6 through 10, as the Fourteenth Amendment protects him plaintiff has numbered the pages, of from such action. See Short v. the Motion for Leave to Amend Hartman, 87 F.4th 593, 608–09 (4th Complaint, entitled “Amended Cir. 2023). Therefore, this amended Complaint” will be treated as the pleading, “Second Amended operative Second Amended Complaint,” is treated as bringing a Complaint. deliberate indifference claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Because the plaintiff never plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment effectuated service of a complaint on Due Process rights. Dr. Corrigan, see infra at 6, he must properly serve Dr. Corrigan with a To state a claim for deliberate copy of the summons and Second indifference to a medical need, “a Amended Complaint as Rule 4 pretrial detainee must plead that (1) requires. Failure to do so will lead to [he] had a medical condition or injury dismissal of the action. that posed a substantial risk of serious harm; (2) the defendant intentionally, C. The Court grants in part and knowingly, or recklessly acted or denies in part the plaintiff’s failed to act to appropriately address motion for copies and to the risk that the condition posed; (3) have the United States the defendant knew or should have Marshals Service effect known (a) that the detainee had that service, Docket Entry 59. condition and (b) that the defendant’s action or inaction posed an The plaintiff has moved the Court to unjustifiably high risk of harm; and order the staff at the RCDC to make (4) as a result, the detainee was copies for him and for the United harmed.” Id. at 611. States Marshals Service to serve Dr. Corrigan’s attorney, Docket Entry 59.

While the familiar pleading standard The plaintiff claims that the staff at in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the RCDC refuses to make copies of 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. documents he needs for court.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) applies, Assuming arguendo that this claim is the Court construes a pro se plaintiff’s properly before the Court, there is no complaint liberally in his favor, party to this action that can be Jehovah v. Clarke, 798 F.3d 169, 176 ordered to do so. This portion of the (4th Cir. 2015). Here, the plaintiff has motion is denied. sufficiently stated a deliberate indifference claim against Dr. The plaintiff is indigent, and, Corrigan, and, thus, it is not futile to therefore, his request to have the grant leave to amend the Amended United States Marshals Service serve Complaint. Dr. Corrigan is granted in part. But it is the plaintiff who must determine 966 (citing Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d the proper individual and address to 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975)). serve so the Court will not order service on Dr. Corrigan’s attorney. “[T]he existence of exceptional circumstances in each case ‘hinges on Therefore, the Court grants this characteristics of the claim and the motion in part as to the request for the litigant.’” Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 United States Marshals Service to F.4th 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2024) serve Dr. Corrigan but denies this (quoting Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 motion in part as to ordering service F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), on Dr. Corrigan’s attorney and as to abrogated in part on other grounds, order copies. Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S.D. Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989)). “The D. The Court denies the district court must therefore assess (1) plaintiff’s motions to whether the plaintiff asserts a claim appoint counsel, Docket that is not frivolous, (2) the difficulty Entries 37 and 58. of the claim, and (3) whether the plaintiff can present the claim The plaintiff moved for appointment considering the skill required to do so of counsel, Docket Entry 37, shortly and the plaintiff’s individual after he moved for summary abilities.” Id. judgment. He has since filed another motion requesting appointment of As to the first prong, the plaintiff’s counsel, Docket Entry 58. claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Corrigan is not frivolous.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), “[t]he While this claim will require him to court may request an attorney to show that Dr. Corrigan knew of and represent any person unable to afford disregarded an objectively serious counsel.” However, “a plaintiff does medical need, the plaintiff, as the not have an absolute right to allegedly injured party, knows the appointment of counsel.” Miller v. facts and evidence supporting those Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. facts. His pleadings and filings 1987). Instead, court assistance in directed at Dr. Corrigan show that the obtaining counsel constitutes “a plaintiff understands the claim. matter within the discretion of the District Court. It is a privilege and not Furthermore, the plaintiff has thus far a right.” Bowman v. White, 388 F.2d advocated effectively for himself. He 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1968). In this has successfully sought amendments regard, the United States Court of to his complaint, paid heed to the Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has Clerk’s denial of his first motion for held that a litigant “must show that entry of default against Dr. Corrigan his case is one with exceptional by requesting a renewed summons for circumstances.” Miller, 814 F.2d at an attempted second service, and, after the Fourth Circuit dismissed his sought has failed to plead or otherwise appeal, moved to renew all of his prior defend, and that failure is shown by filings. See, e.g., Docket Entries 17, affidavit or otherwise,” the party’s 30, 61, 77. In addition, he has default must be entered. Fed. R. Civ. responded to the defendants’ motions P. 55(a). and sought extensions of time to respond to at least one. See, e.g., However, the plaintiff did not Docket Entries 19, 24. And he filed properly serve Dr. Corrigan with the comprehensive objections to the complaint. See Docket Entries 8 Recommended Ruling. See Docket (serving Paulette Stroupe), 32 Entry 43. (serving Crystal Blevins), 50 (Aff.

Kevin John Corrigan (Sept. 24, At this stage in the litigation, there are 2024)). Therefore, there were no no exceptional circumstances claims for relief against which he warranting appointment of counsel must defend himself. for the plaintiff. To the extent that the plaintiff requests, in his most recent The Court denies the plaintiff’s motion, appointment of counsel for motion for entry of default against Dr. all of his pending civil cases, he must Corrigan. move for counsel in each matter separately. His motion for F. The Court should deny the appointment of counsel at Docket following motions.

Entry 37 is denied as moot and the motion for appointment of counsel at 1. The plaintiff’s motion for Docket Entry 58 is denied without summary judgment, prejudice.4 Docket Entry 33 The plaintiff moved for summary E. The Court denies the judgment against the Officer plaintiff’s motion for entry Defendants, Docket Entry 33, after of default against Dr. their fully briefed motion to dismiss Corrigan, Docket Entry 38. was referred to the Court for consideration.

The plaintiff moved for a second time for entry of default against Dr. As noted above, the Court granted the Corrigan, Docket Entry 38.

Officer Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and they are no longer “When a party against whom a parties in this action. Therefore, the judgment for affirmative relief is The plaintiff includes in his motion for RCDC itself is a defendant in this action, appointment of counsel, Docket Entry and Dr. Corrigan is not alleged to have 58, a request to order staff at the RCDC any responsibility for the provision of to provide him materials to pursue his materials to the plaintiff. This portion of legal claims. No one at the RCDC nor the the motion is denied.

Court should deny as moot the plaintiff’s motion for summary The District Judge then made “‘a de judgment on his claims against them. novo determination of those portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] report or 2. The plaintiff’s motion to specified proposed findings or implement North recommendations to which objection Carolina’s waiver of [was] made.’” See Order at 2 (quoting PLRA Affirmative 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). The District Defense, Docket Entry Judge’s “de novo determination” was 40 “in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation,” and the District The plaintiff has filed a Motion to Judge adopted the Recommendation.

Implement North Carolina’s Waiver Id. In other words, the Court assessed of PLRA Affirmative Defense, Docket the plaintiff’s exhaustion arguments Entry 40, asking the Court to waive and still found the dismissal the exhaustion requirement in the recommendation appropriate. interest of justice. He cites to North Carolina General Statute § 148- The Court should deny this motion as 118.2(b) which provides “that the moot. court can waive the exhaustion requirement if it finds such waiver to 3. The plaintiff’s 56(d) be in the interest of justice.”5 motion, Docket Entry 41 Not only has the Court dismissed the The plaintiff filed a motion entitled claims against the Officer Defendants “Rule 56(d) Motion” in which he asks to which this motion relates, but the the court to defer considering the Court has also already ruled on the Officer Defendants’ motion for plaintiff’s request for this relief. In his summary judgment “or preferably” to objections to the Recommendation, deny it, Docket Entry 41. the plaintiff asked that the Court stay the matter for ninety days to permit According to the plaintiff, evidence him to exhaust his remedies or available through discovery would recognize that North Carolina General show that he exhausted his available Statute Section 148-118.1 allows a remedies and would support his court to waive the exhaustion claims through summary judgment. requirement in the interest of justice.

See Obj. to Mag. J.’s Order & Not only has the Court dismissed the Recommendations ¶¶ 21–45, Docket claims against the Officer Defendants Entry 43. to which this motion relates, but the The PLRA itself does not allow for Black, 578 U.S. 632, 638–42 (2016); see judicial discretion, but it does provide a also id. at 643–44 (defining when “textual exception” when remedies are remedies are unavailable to the inmate). not available to the prisoner. See Ross v. Court already assessed this very The plaintiff moves for relief from a argument when the plaintiff included final judgment in this case, pursuant it in his objections to the to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Recommendation. See generally Obj. Rules of Civil Procedure, Docket to Mag. J.’s Order & Entry 63. However, the Court has not Recommendations. But, as explained entered a final judgment in this above, after review, the Court adopted action. The Court should deny this the Recommendation. Order at 2. motion.

Therefore, the Court should deny this motion as moot. 6. The plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 4. Dr. Corrigan’s motion to order or preliminary dismiss, Docket Entry 50 injunction, Docket Entry Dr. Corrigan has moved to dismiss the (amended) complaint, Docket Entry The plaintiff seeks a temporary 50, for failure to effectuate service and restraining order and preliminary failure to state a claim. injunction against Sheriff Travis Allen and those acting in concert with him Indeed, the plaintiff failed to serve Dr. that orders them to provide the Corrigan with the summons and plaintiff with legal materials, Docket Complaint. See Docket Entries 8 Entry 68. However, neither Sheriff (serving Paulette Stroupe); 32 Allen nor anyone associated with him (serving Crystal Blevins); 50 (Aff. is a defendant in this action. To the Kevin John Corrigan (Sept. 24, extent that the plaintiff requests that 2024)).6 However, because the the Court enjoin Sheriff Allen’s undersigned is granting the plaintiff’s actions in the plaintiff’s other pending motion to amend his Amended civil actions, the plaintiff must move Complaint, the Court should deny Dr. in those cases separately.7 The Court Corrigan’s motion to dismiss as moot. should deny this motion.

5. The plaintiff’s Rules 59 and 60 motion, Docket Entry 63

6 Dr. Corrigan’s subsequent opposition to moot considering the granting of leave the plaintiff’s motion to amend and other for the plaintiff to amend his Amended filings would likely not have waived his Complaint. challenge to personal jurisdiction. See, 7 The plaintiff lists three cases numbers e.g., Fowler v. SSC Seneca Operating on this motion and asked for the Co., LLC, No. 8:21-00430-HMH, 2023 injunction “for all above said case WL 35936, at *3–*4 (D.S.C. Jan. 4, numbers.”

2023). Nevertheless, this challenge is • Motion to Renew Prior Filings Pertaining to Defendant II. CONCLUSION Corrigan, Docket Entry 77, is GRANTED; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: • The Clerk shall file pages 6 • Motion to Appoint Counsel, through 10, as the plaintiff Docket Entry 37, is DENIED AS numbered the pages, of Docket MOOT; Entry 61 as the Second Amended Complaint; • Motion for Entry of Default Against Kevin Corigan, Docket • The Clerk shall send the Entry 38, is DENIED; plaintiff a summons; the plaintiff must then fill out a • Motion for a Court Order for summons for Dr. Corrigan, the Jai[l] to Provide Legal including an address suitable Materials/Motion for for service, and then return the Appointment of Counsel, summons to the Clerk.

Docket Entry 58, is DENIED as FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN to the Order for Legal Materials ADDRESS WHEREIN and DENIED WITHOUT SERVICE MAY BE MADE PREJUDICE as to the ON THE DEFENDANT appointment of counsel; WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE • Motion for Copies and to have ACTION AS TO THE Marshals Effectuate Service UNSERVED DEFENDANT upon Defendant’s Counsel AFTER 90 DAYS FROM Jennifer B. Milak the Amended THE FILING OF THIS Complaint with Leave, Docket ORDER; and Entry 59, is GRANTED as to the United States Marshals Service • The United States Marshal, serving Dr. Corrigan with the upon return of the properly summons and Second completed summons, shall Amended Complaint and serve the Complaint on the otherwise DENIED; defendant. • Motion for Leave to Amend IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED Complaint/Amended THAT: Complaint, Docket Entry 61, is GRANTED; • The Court DENY AS MOOT the Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket Entry 33; e The Court DENY AS MOOT the Motion to Implement North e The Court DENY the Rules 59 Carolina’s Waiver of PLRA and 60 Motion, Docket Entry Affirmative Defense, Docket 63; and Entry 40; e The Court DENY the Motion for ¢ The Court DENY AS MOOT the Temporary Restraining Order Rule 56(d) Motion, Docket (TRO)/Preliminary Injunction, Entry 41; Docket Entry 68. e The Court DENY AS MOOT This the 4th day of June 2026.

Kevin John Corrigan’s Motion to Dismiss, Docket Entry 50; J tf et cFadden United States Magistrate Judge