Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-1_25-cv-01515-0

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · 2026-06-16

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:43:03

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
* 
* 
* Ci
vil Action No. RDB-25-1515 
MATHEW BYRD, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
FCI CUMBERLAND, et al., * 
De
fendants. * 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * 
MEMO
RANDUM ORDER 
In this civil rights action, Plaintiff Mathew Byrd (“Mr. Byrd”) alleges that he was 
attacked by a fellow inmate on July 22, 2023, while incarcerated at Federal Correctional 
Institution Cumberland in Cumberland, Maryland. (ECF No. 15 -1.) His proposed four-count 
Amended Complaint brings two counts against Defendant the United States under the Federal 
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. (Counts I and II). He also alleges two Bivens claims,1 
each of which alleges Eighth Amendment violations by prison personnel in their individual 
capacities: the Warden of FCI Cumberland, Defendant Crystal Carter; various John and Jane 
Doe medical personnel Defendants ; and John Doe correctional officer Defendants 
(collectively, including the United States, “Defendants”) (Counts III and IV) .
2 Mr. Byrd is 
1 In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme 
Court recognized a damages remedy to vindicate violations of constitutional rights committed by federal agents. 
See Zimbelman v. Savage, 228 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing Bivens , 403 U.S. at 388)). The Supreme Court 
has described Bivens as a “more limited federal analog” to the cause of action created for constitutional violations 
by state officials in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hernandez v. Mesa, 589 U.S. 93, 109 (2020) (quotations omitted) (quoting 
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254 n.2 (2006)). 
2 The proposed Amended Complaint states, under its “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law” section, that 
the Federal Tort Claims Act is the relevant cause of action for Counts I, II, and III. The enumerated counts 

2 
currently incarcerated at the Pittsburgh RRM, a halfway house in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with 
a projected release date of March 20, 2027. See Find an Inmate , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (search by register number: 70281 -061) (last accessed June 
11, 2026). 
There are two motions presently pending before the Court . The first is Defendants’ 
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Insufficient Service of Process, or in the 
Alternative, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7), which seeks dismissal of Mr. Byrd’s original 
complaint in this case. The second is Mr. Byrd’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 
(ECF No. 15). Mr. Byrd’s Motion for Leave stipulates to a dismissal of the claims in the original 
Complaint in favor of pursuing the four counts as pleaded in the proposed Amended 
Complaint. (ECF No. 15 -1.) Counsel for Defendants confirmed by e- mail on June 15, 2026, 
that Defendants do not oppose Mr. Byrd’s Motion for Leave.
3 
Accordingly, th e Motion for Leave (ECF No. 15) being unopposed, Defendants’ 
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT . See Goodman v. Diggs, 986 F.3d 493, 
498 (4th Cir. 2021) (“Ordinarily, an amended complaint supersedes those that came before it.”); 
accord Howard v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, Inc., RDB-18-3296, 2019 WL 4750333, at *2 (D. Md. Sep. 
30, 2019). Mr. Byrd’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 15) 
is GRANTED. 
Accordingly, it is this 16th day of June 2026 HEREBY ORDERED that: 
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Insufficient Service 
 
listed later in the Amended Complaint, however, make clear that only Counts I and II arise under that law, 
while Counts III and IV are Bivens claims against the individual Defendants. See (ECF No. 15-1). 
3 That e-mail is on file with the Court. 

3 
of Process, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7) is DENIED 
AS MOOT; 
2. Plaintiff Mathew Byrd’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
(ECF No. 15) is GRANTED; and
3. The Clerk of this Court shall transmit copies of this Order to counsel.
R
ichard D. Bennett 
United States Senior District Judge 
/s/

Passage view · GavelSight