BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.
This action has been filed by the Plaintiff,
The Detention Center employee Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., on March 20, 2019. As the Plaintiff is proceeding
The Defendants' motions are now before the Court for disposition.
Plaintiff's claims involve allegedly improper medical care he received in the period May — August 2018 while he was incarcerated at the ACDC. Plaintiff alleges in his verified Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that later that morning he had Deputy Wilson call in for a walker so he could go to the bathroom. Plaintiff alleges that Lt. Riddel and Sgt. Bradly brought him a walker so he could use the bathroom, and then (after he had used the bathroom) removed the walker from his cell. Plaintiff alleges that a little later he was sitting on his bunk "in an uncomfortable upright position", when he fell to the floor while trying to hit the call button (which was located on an adjacent wall). Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Wilson (who he assumes heard him fall) called in a medical emergency, following which Riddel, Bradly and Nurse Shellie all came to his cell. Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Shellie checked his vitals and then spoke to Lt. Riddel, and that when Plaintiff asked Riddel if he could be helped off the floor, Riddel told him that the nurse had instructed him to leave Plaintiff on the floor because he might have a torn muscle, and moving him might worsen the damage.
Plaintiff alleges that later that day, at about 2:15 p.m., he asked Deputy Hallett if he could leave his cell for his daily one hour recreation and also so he could try calling his family. Plaintiff alleges that after his cell door was opened, he proceeded to "crawl" from his cell to the D-Max telephone, where he called his mother and asked her to ask for medical help for him. Plaintiff alleges that about fifteen minutes later, he called his mother back and was told that someone in medical had informed her that Galloway was with the Plaintiff at that "very moment", which was untrue. Plaintiff alleges that he then "crawled" back to his cell and asked the Defendant Deputy Timmerman (who was giving Hallett a break) to close his cell door. Plaintiff alleges that about forty five minutes later (at 3:30 p.m.) Galloway "finally" came back to his cell and informed him that she had spoken to the physician. She then administered another eight hundred mg. Ibuprofen tablet and gave Plaintiff a bag of ice (which Plaintiff states "greatly helped").
Plaintiff alleges he also asked Galloway if he could get help getting off the floor, and that she said yes and left his cell. Plaintiff alleges that he then received his dinner tray around 4:15 p.m., but was told by Deputy Hallett that he would have to wait until "count" at 6:00 p.m. before he could get help to get Plaintiff up off the floor. Plaintiff alleges that at 6:15 p.m. Hallett finally helped get him off the floor, replaced his mattresses, and got him back on his bunk. The walker was also placed back in the cell at that point. Plaintiff complains, however, that during the 9:00 p.m. nurses "med-run" he did not receive a muscle relaxer (flexeril 10 mg) he was supposed to be receiving because they were out of the drug, which was a "recurring" problem.
Plaintiff alleges that the following morning he was again given some ice by Nurse Galloway while receiving his morning meds. Plaintiff alleges that around three thirty that afternoon, he asked the Defendant Deputy Gibson to call medical and ask when he could see the doctor, and that around 4:00 p.m. Gibson informed him that he would see the doctor that day. Plaintiff alleges that shortly thereafter (around 4:20 p.m.) he was "wheel-chaired" to medical and saw the ACDC physician (the Defendant Dr. Williams), who performed a "very brief" examination and diagnosed Plaintiff with a pulled or strained iliofemoral ligament. Plaintiff alleges the physician ordered ice for his leg and stated that heat should be applied to the affected area Saturday and Sunday mornings, which Plaintiff alleges "never occurred". Plaintiff further alleges that he asked Nurse Galloway for eight hundred milligrams (presumably of ibuprofen) to be administered to him twice a day and Tylenol once a day, and that although she agreed, that also "never occurred". Plaintiff also alleges that he received no ice, ibuprofen, or Tylenol from Nurse Shellie during the 9:00 p.m. med run that evening.
Plaintiff alleges that early the following morning (now May 19), at about 1:30 a.m., the Defendant Deputy Arthurs brought him an ice pack (per Nurse Shellie). However, during the 8 to 9 a.m. morning med run, Plaintiff complains he got no ibuprofen, and that the Defendant Nurse Angel told him "she had no idea how to get [him] heat for the leg injury". Plaintiff alleges that around noon he asked the Defendant Deputy Roberts to notify the Defendant Nurse Robyn that he wanted some ibuprofen and ice for the "increasing" pain in his leg, and that he continued to ask Deputy Roberts for ice for his leg over the course of the afternoon, but that around 5:00 p.m. Roberts informed him that the delay was due to them being unable to contact or reach Galloway to verify that ice had been prescribed for his leg injury. However, Plaintiff also alleges (contradicting his earlier statement in his Complaint) that the Defendant Nurse Robyn had brought ice to his cell that afternoon at around 3:45 p.m. Plaintiff further alleges that he had called his mother earlier that afternoon to complain and to ask that she call the medical department about his lack of medical care and treatment, and that when Nurse Robyn brought him his ice she was "noticeably upset" and told Plaintiff he would be charged with harassment if his family continued to call medical complaining about Plaintiff's medical treatment.
Plaintiff alleges that at 12:00 a.m. on Sunday morning (May 20th), he asked the Defendant Deputy Arthurs to call Nurse Shellie to inquire about getting some more ice, and that shortly thereafter she said she would bring it. Plaintiff complains that at 1:00 a.m. he asked Arthurs where his ice was, and was informed that the nurse was on the way. However, Plaintiff complains that Arthurs did not finally bring him his ice pack until 1:30 a.m.
Plaintiff also alleges that about 9:00 a.m. on June 7 he spoke to Galloway about receiving some meds, and that at about 8:30 a.m. on July 2 he was taken from the Detention Center to the Carolina Musculoskelatal Institute for outside medical care, where he was seen by Dr. Kevin Ard. Plaintiff alleges that this visit was for a review of a separate complaint he had about neck/back pain, but that he asked the Defendant Deputy Cobb (who was transporting him) if he could also get his leg injury checked while he was there, but that Cobb said "no". Plaintiff alleges that he was given two steroid injections, was prescribed Zanaflex, three times a day, and was scheduled for an MRI. Plaintiff alleges that after he was returned to the Detention Center he informed Galloway what Dr. Ard had prescribed, and that Galloway told him she could only get the Zanaflex filled twice a day (or 2 then 1 pill a day, in either format).
Plaintiff alleges that on July 9 he put in for a sick call asking Galloway to come see him to discuss the next step regarding his leg injury, but that she never came. However, between July 9 and July 13 he did speak to Galloway and she informed him that on his next outside medical visit (follow up) he could get both his neck/back and leg looked at. Plaintiff alleges that on July 15 he submitted a grievance regarding not receiving his Zanaflex pills. Plaintiff also alleges that he was taking Gabapentin for his back/neck pain, but when that drug was discontinued, as of July 23, 2018 he had never received a replacement medication. Plaintiff alleges that on July 23 he sent the Defendant Lt. Butts an inquiry concerning a request he had made, but that Butts responded back to him on July 24 that he had not "found the time yet" to sit down with the Defendant Lt. Bowman to discuss his request.
In support of summary judgment in the case the Detention Center employee Defendants have submitted an affidavit from Nick Gallam, who attests that he is the Administrator of the Aiken County Detention Center, where he is responsible for the day to day operations of the Detention Center. Gallam attests that Plaintiff was detained at the ACDC beginning January 4, 2018 following his arrest on a charge of armed robbery, and that Plaintiff was transferred from the Detention Center to the South Carolina Department of Corrections on March 15, 2019.
The medical Defendants have provided an affidavit from the Defendant Brandi Galloway, as well as a copy of Plaintiff's medical records. Galloway attests that she is a Registered Nurse employed by the Defendant Southern Health Partners, Inc. as the MTA at the Aiken County Detention Center, where her job is to provide nursing care to detainees/patients and coordinate the medical department. Galloway attests that the Defendant Nurse Shellie is Shellie Donaldson, who formerly worked as a nurse in the medical department at the Detention Center, and that her last day of work was July 8, 2018. Galloway further attests that the Defendant Sherry Hammick's correct name is Sue Hammock, and that she filled in as a nurse on an as needed basis at the Detention Center on three occasions in 2018 — February 7, March 8, and March 27. Galloway attests that the Defendant Nurse Robyn is Roben Wolfe, who is no longer a nurse at the Detention Center. Galloway attests that the Defendant Nurse Angel's correct name is Angel Reed, and that she is the Medication Technician at the Detention Center. In this position, Reed passes out medications that have been prescribed to inmates during MedPass, which is twice a day. Galloway attests that the Defendant Dr. Williams is Dr. Robert Williams, who is the Medical Director at the Detention Center. Galloway attests that Dr. Williams provides treatment to detainees and oversees the care provided by the nurses. Galloway attests that neither she nor any of the nurses in the medical department can prescribe medication or change dosages of a medication that has been prescribed. Galloway further attests that all of the employees in the medical department are employed by Southern Health Partners, not by Aiken County or the Detention Center, and that these individuals' only role is to provide health services. They do not have involvement in any other matters at the Detention Center.
Galloway attests that Plaintiff was detained at the Detention Center from January 4, 2018 to approximately March 15, 2019. Galloway attests that during his time at the Detention Center Plaintiff regularly complained about pain in his neck and back. Galloway attests that shortly after he arrived, Plaintiff advised medical that he had a degenerative neck/back condition which caused chronic pain, and also that he had sleep apnea. Galloway attests that they initially provided Plaintiff with prescription strength ibuprofen for pain, and also gave him an order allowing for him to have a c-pap machine for his sleep apnea. Further, when Plaintiff continued to complain of neck and back pain, Dr. Williams ordered Naproxen for him, and then provided Plaintiff with Tylenol until the Naproxen order had arrived. However, Galloway attests that shortly after receiving the Naproxen, Plaintiff advised that it was not working and that he was still experiencing pain. Plaintiff requested Gabapentin (Neurontin) instead, saying that he had previously taken this medication and that it helped, so Dr. Williams ordered Gabapentin for the Plaintiff and also added Cyclobenzaprine (a muscle relaxant, also know as Flexeril) to Plaintiff's medical list. Galloway attests that medical also issued a request for Plaintiff to receive a second mat for his bed in order to make him more comfortable. Even so, over the following months Plaintiff continued to complain and ask that his dosages be increased. Galloway attests that in response Dr. Williams made several modifications to Plaintiff's dosages as he deemed appropriate in an effort to address Plaintiff's continuing pain complaints. They also requested records of prior care from Plaintiff's outside physician to learn more about his condition, and these records revealed prior knee and neck issues.
Galloway attests that in the early hours of May 17 medical was called to Plaintiff's cell, where he was found on the floor. Plaintiff stated that he had heard a "pop" when he had tried to get out of his bed, and was experiencing intense pain in his thigh/groin area. Galloway attests that Plaintiff was checked by the nurse and provided with some prescription strength ibuprofen. He was also monitored throughout the next day and given ice packs and then warm compresses for the area. Galloway attests that Dr. Williams examined Plaintiff the next day (May 18) and determined that Plaintiff had a muscle/ligament strain. Dr. Williams placed Plaintiff on a tapering course of oral steroid in an effort to address his pain complaints.
Galloway attests that when Plaintiff still complained of pain during Dr. Williams' follow up with him on June 21, Dr. Williams gave him a steroid injection in the area of the strain, and Plaintiff was advised to rest, relax, stretch and keep ice on the area. Plaintiff also continued to receive oral pain medications and muscle relaxants. Moreover, because Plaintiff continued to have a pain in his neck and back area, medical arranged for Plaintiff to have an appointment with Carolina Musculoskeletal Institute (CMI), which is where Plaintiff reported he had been treated in the past. Galloway attests that Plaintiff was transported there beginning July 28, and that he continued to go for injections thereafter, as ordered. Galloway further attests that CMI took multiple x-rays, including x-rays of Plaintiff's back, hip and knee (in response to his complaints of the groin/thigh pain), and that these reports showed no fractures or dislocations, although he did have signs of degenerative issues. Galloway attests that an MRI was also done, which showed the presence of some disc bulging, mild degenerative disc disease, mild stenosis, and mild facet joint disease.
Galloway attests that in addition to these visits to CMI, Dr. Williams also regularly followed up with the Plaintiff, and that additional pain relievers and muscle relaxers (Zanaflex, Baclofen, Tizanidine and Meloxicam) were provided to the Plaintiff in response to his visits both with Dr. Williams and with CMI. Galloway attests that the medical department also gave Plaintiff a "pillow pass" per CMI's recommendation, which meant he could have a special pillow in the jail. He also had a walker to assist him in getting around. Galloway further attests that Plaintiff also received medications and care for his various other complaints while at the Detention Center, including migraine/headaches, nausea/vomiting, rash, arm/shoulder pain, mental health issues, medications for high blood pressure, and head pain/vision complaints (after an altercation).
Galloway attests that the medical staff at the Detention Center responded continuously to Plaintiff's requests for care, that no one was ever deliberately indifferent to him, and in fact, went to great lengths to assist him with his complaints, as evidenced by the many changes in his medications (both in types and dosage amounts) as well as by his outside visits with CMI. Galloway attests that the medical department tried to address Plaintiff's needs and provide care as determined by Dr. Williams at CMI to be medically necessary and appropriate.
Plaintiff did not provide any evidence or exhibits in opposition to the Defendants' motions.
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entiled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. The moving party has the burden of proving that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate.
Here, after careful review and consideration of the evidence and arguments submitted, the undersigned finds and concludes for the reasons set forth hereinbelow that the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment in this case.
First, since Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at the Detention Center, to the extent he is seeking injunctive and/or declaratory relief (that the Defendants increase training and improve their medical responses and practices), that claim is moot.
Therefore, Plaintiff's claim for injunctive and/or declaratory relief in this case should be dismissed.
Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages survives his release from the Detention Center;
In order to survive summary judgment and proceed with his claims for denial of adequate medical care, Plaintiff must have evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether any named Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Rather, Plaintiff simply disagrees with the care decisions made by the nurses and physician, including with respect to what types of drugs and other medications he was to receive, whether and when he should have been sent to an outside physician for evaluation, and whether his medical complaints were emergent conditions that required immediate care (and not just immediate care, but the kind that Plaintiff was demanding). However, Plaintiff's mere lay disagreement with the decisions made by medical personnel with respect to his medical care is not "evidence" of deliberate indifference, and is not a sufficient ground on which to allow this case to proceed.
While Plaintiff complains he did not always get ice when he wanted it, did not receive heat compresses that he was supposed to have received, or on occasion did not receive a medication he was scheduled to receive (allegations assumed to be true for purposes of summary judgment), he has failed to present any evidence to show that such delays or omissions/commissions in his treatment or examinations (assuming they even occurred) amount to a constitutional violation.
In contrast to Plaintiff's lack of supporting evidence for his medical claims, the evidence before the Court (from both the Defendants and the Plaintiff) showing that there was no "deliberate indifference" to his medical complaints. This evidence includes not just voluminous medical records and exhibits showing the ongoing care and treatment Plaintiff received, but also a sworn affidavit from a licensed medical professional attesting that the medical professionals involved in Plaintiff's care evaluated his condition and rendered judgement as to the type of care and treatment was warranted based on their professional experience and judgment. Again, Plaintiff's mere lay disagreement with the opinions or diagnoses of these medical professionals, without any contrary medical evidence to show that any medical professional violated the requisite standard of care for his complaints, is not sufficient to survive summary judgment with respect to his §1983 deliberate indifference claims.
Plaintiff's claims against the non-medical Defendants fail for this same reason. Plaintiff has presented no evidence to show that any of these Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with medical care per instructions from any of the doctors or nurses, failed to provide him with medications when instructed to do so by medical personnel (in fact, Plaintiff's medical records are replete with notations indicating where Plaintiff had received his prescribed medications), or failed to transport Plaintiff for medical appointments when so instructed. Further, these non-medical Defendants were entitled in any event to rely on instructions received from medical personnel, and therefore none of these Defendants is subject to liability for medical care decisions made by the medical Defendants.
Of course, Plaintiff may pursue a claim in state court if he believes that the medical care provided to him constituted malpractice. However, that is not the issue before this Court with respect to Plaintiff's constitutional claims asserted under § 1983.
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Defendants' motions for summary judgment be
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to: