Submitted: July 19, 2018
Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware C.A. No.
VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.
T. VAUGHN, JR. JUSTICE
appellant, Marcus Johnson, is serving a sentence in the
custody of a Delaware correctional facility. Johnson has
filed this appeal from the Superior Court's order of
September 29, 2017, dismissing his civil complaint against
Connections Community Support Programs, Inc., and several of
the company's employees. Connections Community Support
Programs (CCSP) provides medical care to inmates incarcerated
in Delaware. Johnson's complaint asserted liability under
stand-alone theories of negligent supervision and deliberate
indifference of a prisoner's serious medical needs.
Johnson alleged that he was injured as a result of the
defendants' repeated failures to schedule him for a
follow-up medical appointment to address a sleeping
disorder-sleep apnea-which he described as severe.
Johnson alleged that CCSP's repeated errors and
oversights caused a delay of nearly one year during which he
suffered daily pain and exhaustion from his untreated medical
condition. Johnson alleged that a CCSP employee advised him
in May 2016 that the repeated failures to schedule the
appointment were due to CCSP being understaffed. And Johnson
alleged that, notwithstanding two medical grievance decisions
in August 2016 ruling in his favor and directing that the
follow-up appointment be scheduled without further delay,
CCSP still had not made the appointment at the time he filed
his complaint in January 2017.
April 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
After considering the motion and Johnson's response, the
Superior Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. This
Johnson raises only one argument on appeal-that the Superior
Court erred when dismissing his deliberate indifference claim
under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6). All other claims
and issues that Johnson could have raised on appeal, but did
not, are deemed waived and abandoned. 
When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim, the Superior Court must determine
whether the plaintiff "may recover under any reasonably
conceivable set of circumstances susceptible of proof under
the complaint."  We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
de novo to determine whether the trial judge erred
as a matter of law. 
is well-established that "deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the
'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,'
proscribed by the Eighth Amendment."  To succeed with a
claim of deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must prove
that he has a serious medical need and that the defendant
knew of the serious medical need and disregarded it.
medical need is sufficiently serious if a physician has
diagnosed it as requiring treatment or if it is one that is
so obvious that a layperson could easily recognize the need
for a physician's attention.  Courts have long held that
deliberate indifference can occur when prison medical
authorities cause a delay in providing medical treatment.
individual defendants include four nurses, Cynthia Mallee,
Laura Brackett, Staci Collins-Young, and Sharon Henderson. We
agree with the Superior Court that the plaintiff has not
alleged facts sufficient to show that they had the culpable
state of mind for a claim of deliberate indifference.
Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint as to those four
defendants is affirmed. After carefully considering the
parties' briefs and the record, however, we have
concluded that the Superior Court erred when dismissing
Johnson's deliberate indifference claim as to the
remaining two defendants, CCSP and Jami Jones, who is alleged
to have been responsible for seeing that medical requests
were handled appropriately. Johnson has alleged more than the
ordinary delays attendant to routine prison medical care. He
claims a serious medical condition left untreated for over a
year, two medical grievance decisions in his favor finding
the need for treatment, and yet at the time of filing the
complaint, he still had not received treatment. Viewing the
complaint's factual allegations in a light most favorable
to Johnson, we conclude that the claim against CCSP and Jami
Jones was sufficient to survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, dismissal of the
complaint as to those two parties is reversed.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and this
matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this Order. Jurisdiction is not retained.