Warren Giddings v. Correctional Officer Charriez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 16, 2024
• Docket: 23-6121
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6121 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6121

WARREN MATHEW GIDDINGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CHARRIEZ, MCTC, Hagerstown, MD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GRUBBS, MCTC, Hagerstown, MD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BARGER, MCTC, Hagerstown, MD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BOWERS, MCTC, Hagerstown, MD; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STEWART, MCTC, Hagerstown, MD; MCTC OFFICER; DR. JERRY ANN HUNTER, MCI-H Doctor; DR. ERWIN ALDANA, MCI-H Medical Director/Supervisor; CORIZON STAFF; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DURBORAW; CORIZON HEALTH, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02735-GJH)

Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 16, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Mathew Giddings, Appellant Pro Se. Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees Dr. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6121 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Jerry Ann Hunter, Dr. Erwin Aldana, Corizon Staff, and Corizon Health, Inc.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6121 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/16/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Warren Mathew Giddings appeals the district court’s order granting summary

judgment to various prison officials at the Maryland Correctional Training Center (the

“Correctional Defendants”), as well as Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”), and two

individual doctors, on Giddings’ claims raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal,

Corizon has filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of automatic stay informing this

court that it commenced Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in February 2023. The

automatic stay precludes us from reviewing the district court’s disposition of Giddings’

claim against Corizon.

As to the district court’s disposition of Giddings’ claims against the remaining

Defendants, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

grant Giddings’ motion to proceed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and

we affirm the district court’s order as to all defendants except Corizon. Giddings v.

Charriez, No. 1:21-cv-02735-GJH (D. Md. Jan. 31, 2023). Because the court found that

Giddings failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his claims against

the Correctional Defendants, we modify the district court’s ruling on those claims to render

it a dismissal without prejudice. See Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022); Moss

v. Harwood, 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART