IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EDWARD A. WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, } v. Civil Action No. 25-1381-MN-SRF VITALCORE, ) Defendant. } REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Edward A. Wilson (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at Howard R. Young Correctional Institution “SHRYCI”), filed this action on November 13, 2025, alleging violations of his civil tights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2) He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.1. 5) The court proceeds to review and screen the matter pursuant to 28 ULS.C, §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(a). For the reasons set forth below, the court recommends the claims against VitalCore for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1. BACKGROUND The complaint raises civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant VitalCore, a contract medical provider to the Delaware Department of Corrections (“DDOC”). The claims arise from allegedly inadequate medical care Plaintiff received while incarcerated in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for physical injuries he sustained as a result of the allegedly inadequate medical care. According to the complaint, on November 21, 2023, a nurse administered the wrong medication to Plaintiff after failing to properly read his chart, causing Plaintiff to suffer a severe reaction. Plaintiff passed out and broke his nose. Prison guards responded by administering
Narcan and taking Plaintiff to Wilmington Hospital, where he remained for a week. (D.I. 2 at 5- 6) Plaintiff asserts clatms for medical malpractice and medical indifference against VitalCore. i. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sva sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C, §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 Gd Cir. 2013); see also 28 § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, S15 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S, 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neifzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir, 2020). Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)2)(B)G) and 1915A(b)(), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it depends on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual scenario. Dooley, 957 F.3d at 374 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when deciding
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscher vy. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C, §§ 1915 and 1915A, the court must grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 Gd Cir. 2002). A complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the well-pieaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations “could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though “detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint must do more than simply provide “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 Gd Cir. 2014) Gnternal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson vy, City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted, See id. at 10. Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Comelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 Gd Cir. 2016); see also lgbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)), Deciding whether a claim is plausible
will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Jd. II. DISCUSSION The complaint alleges that VitalCore engaged in medical malpractice and medical indifference when an unidentified nurse administered the wrong combination of medicine to Plaintiff, causing a severe reaction that resulted in Plaintiffs hospitalization for one week, (D.1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE EDWARD A. WILSON, ) ) Plaintiff, } v. Civil Action No. 25-1381-MN-SRF VITALCORE, ) Defendant. } REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Edward A. Wilson (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at Howard R. Young Correctional Institution “SHRYCI”), filed this action on November 13, 2025, alleging violations of his civil tights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 2) He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.1. 5) The court proceeds to review and screen the matter pursuant to 28 ULS.C, §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(a). For the reasons set forth below, the court recommends the claims against VitalCore for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1. BACKGROUND The complaint raises civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant VitalCore, a contract medical provider to the Delaware Department of Corrections (“DDOC”). The claims arise from allegedly inadequate medical care Plaintiff received while incarcerated in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for physical injuries he sustained as a result of the allegedly inadequate medical care. According to the complaint, on November 21, 2023, a nurse administered the wrong medication to Plaintiff after failing to properly read his chart, causing Plaintiff to suffer a severe reaction. Plaintiff passed out and broke his nose. Prison guards responded by administering
Narcan and taking Plaintiff to Wilmington Hospital, where he remained for a week. (D.I. 2 at 5- 6) Plaintiff asserts clatms for medical malpractice and medical indifference against VitalCore. i. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal court may properly dismiss an action sva sponte under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C, §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b) if “the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448, 452 Gd Cir. 2013); see also 28 § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis actions); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (actions in which prisoner seeks redress from a governmental defendant); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (prisoner actions brought with respect to prison conditions). The court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, S15 F.3d 224, 229 (3d Cir. 2008); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S, 89, 93 (2007). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, “however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94 (citations omitted). An action is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neifzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim. See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir, 2020). Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)2)(B)G) and 1915A(b)(), a court may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it depends on an “indisputably meritless legal theory” or a “clearly baseless” or “fantastic or delusional” factual scenario. Dooley, 957 F.3d at 374 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) is identical to the legal standard used when deciding
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions. See Tourscher vy. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). However, before dismissing a complaint or claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C, §§ 1915 and 1915A, the court must grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 Gd Cir. 2002). A complaint may be dismissed only if, accepting the well-pieaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes that those allegations “could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). Though “detailed factual allegations” are not required, a complaint must do more than simply provide “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Davis v. Abington Mem'l Hosp., 765 F.3d 236, 241 Gd Cir. 2014) Gnternal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson vy, City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted, See id. at 10. Under the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume their veracity and determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. See Comelly v. Lane Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 Gd Cir. 2016); see also lgbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)), Deciding whether a claim is plausible
will be a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Jd. II. DISCUSSION The complaint alleges that VitalCore engaged in medical malpractice and medical indifference when an unidentified nurse administered the wrong combination of medicine to Plaintiff, causing a severe reaction that resulted in Plaintiffs hospitalization for one week, (D.1. 2at 5) To state a claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs against VitalCore, a government contractor, the complaint must allege that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated as a result ofa VitalCore policy, practice or custom. See Williams v. Guard Bryant Fields, 535 F, App’x 205, 211 Gd Cir. 2013); Natale y. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-84 (3d Cir, 2003) (explaining that, because respondeat superior or vicarious liability cannot be a basis for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a corporation under contract with the state cannot be held liable for the acts of its employees and agents under those theories). A corporate defendant “is only liable if its policies are so inadequate and ineffective that the mere decision to employ these policies demonstrates deliberate indifference on the part of the corporation.” McCray v. First State Med. Sys., 379 F. Supp. 2d 635, 638 (D. Del. 2005), The complaint does not allege that VitalCore established or maintained an unconstitutional policy or custom that violated Plaintiffs rights. Moreover, allegations of medical malpractice are not sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. See White vy. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 108-09 (3d Cir. 1990). Consequently, | recommend that the court dismiss Plaintiff's claims against VitalCore without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C, §§ 1915(e)2)(B)(it) and 1915A(b)\(1).
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, I recommend that the court issue an Order in the form set forth below: ORDER At Wilmington this thdayof__, 2026, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation issued on April _, 2026 is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's claims against VitalCore for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and I915A(b)(1). 3. Plaintiff is granted leave until on or before , 2026 to file an amended complaint remedying the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation for the claims dismissed without prejudice. The case will be closed should Plaintiff fail to timely file an amended complaint. This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ, P, 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1, Any objections to the Report and Recommendation shall be limited to ten (10) double-spaced pages and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987); Sineavage v, Barnhart, 171 F. App’x 924, 925 n.1 Gd Cir, 2006),
The parties are directed to the court’s Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated March 7, 2022, a copy of which is available on the court’s website, http://www.ded.uscourts.gov. □□
Dated: April 1.5, 2026 A PRAAS AS oh herry R. Fallon “~~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE