Lorenzo Pledger v. Loretta Lynch, 5 F.4th 511

Lorenzo Pledger, a federal inmate with diagnosed Crohn’s disease, repeatedly complained of severe abdominal pain at FCI Gilmer; recommended imaging and GI consults were delayed or not scheduled.
On Sept. 8, 2015 Pledger collapsed; a CT and subsequent surgery at a hospital revealed acute ulceration, strictures, abscesses, and required resection of portions of colon and small intestine.
Pledger filed suit pro se under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States (medical negligence) and Bivens claims against individual prison medical staff for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference.
The district court dismissed the FTCA claim for failure to serve West Virginia’s pre-suit certificate-of-merit under the Medical Professional Liability Act (MPLA) and granted summary judgment to the individual defendants on the Bivens claims.
On appeal the Fourth Circuit reversed the FTCA dismissal, holding state MPLA certification is displaced by the Federal Rules under Shady Grove/Hanna, and vacated the grant of summary judgment on Bivens claims because the pro se plaintiff lacked proper Roseboro notice and an opportunity for discovery (Rule 56(d)).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether West Virginia’s MPLA pre-suit certificate-of-merit applies to an FTCA suit in federal court	Pledger: Federal Rules govern federal suits; no state certificate required in federal court	U.S.: FTCA incorporates state law and MPLA is a precondition to suit so dismissal is proper	Reversed: Federal Rules displace the MPLA certificate requirement under Shady Grove/Hanna; FTCA incorporates state substantive law but not procedural preconditions
Whether summary judgment for individual defendants on Bivens deliberate indifference was proper without discovery and full notice to a pro se litigant	Pledger: record shows disputed facts and defendants delayed recommended testing; summary judgment premature without discovery	Defendants: medical records show continuous care; at most disagreement over treatment, not deliberate indifference	Vacated: Summary judgment reversed for procedural error—Roseboro notice was inadequate and plaintiff was entitled to opportunity for affidavits/discovery under Rule 56(d); remand for further proceedings

Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (two-step framework whether a Federal Rule displaces state law).
Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (Federal Rules govern procedure in federal courts unless invalid).
Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987) (scope of a Federal Rule may implicitly control an issue).
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (FTCA incorporates state substantive liability, not state procedural rules).
Gallivan v. United States, 943 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2019) (circuit holding state certificate statutes displaced by Federal Rules in FTCA suits).
Young v. United States, 942 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2019) (same).
Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) (must notify pro se litigant of right to file counter-affidavits and other materials when dispositive motion may be treated as summary judgment).
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment medical claims).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard groundwork for Iqbal).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards).