Ronald Cosner v. B. Dodt, 526 F. App'x 252

Cosner, a prisoner, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs after swallowing a plastic knife.
District court dismissed Cosner's complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, without allowing amendment.
Cosner's pleadings, including an informal brief, allege district staff delayed and denied appropriate medical treatment (endoscopy/CT) and hospital transfer.
The district court concluded Cosner failed to plausibly plead deliberate indifference, but the panel vacates and remands for further proceedings.
This court reviews § 1915A dismissals de novo and liberally construes pro se pleadings while requiring plausible claims.
The court notes additional allegations in Cosner's informal brief could strengthen a cognizable claim and that dismissal with prejudice may be improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper	Cosner contends dismissal was premature given potentially cognizable claims.	Dodt and Toney argue no plausible claim was stated.	Dismissal with prejudice vacated; remand for amendment
Whether the complaint plausibly alleges deliberate indifference	Cosner alleges delays and refusals to provide adequate treatment despite known risks.	Defendants contend actions were medical judgments, not indifference.	Plaintiff's allegations are potentially cognizable and show plausible indifference
Whether Cosner should have been allowed to amend	Cosner should have been given an opportunity to amend to particularize the claim.	No explicit argument presented beyond the initial dismissal	Remand to permit amendment; opportunity to address deficiencies is appropriate
Whether the informal brief facts bolster the claim	Additional facts (e.g., denial to treat, history of swallowing objects) support deliberate indifference.	Not specified; reliance on the initial complaint remains	Allegations in the informal brief plausibly strengthen the claim on remand

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (deliberate indifference requires objective seriousness and subjective awareness)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) (prison official knowledge of substantial risk and disregard constitutes indifference)
De’lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2013) (some treatment may be insufficient to meet constitutional standards)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (continued treatment known to be ineffective may violate Eighth Amendment)
Slade v. Hampton Roads Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of § 1915A dismissal; plausibility standard applies)
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (pro se pleadings should be liberally construed)
Rish v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092 (4th Cir. 1997) (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of harm)
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (opportunity to amend when potentially cognizable claims exist)
Coleman v. Peyton, 340 F.2d 603 (4th Cir. 1965) (pro se complaints should be allowed to particularize allegations)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim, not merely possible)