Filed: Sep. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2017
Summary: CORRECTED ORDER 1 MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) because there is no genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the Defendants 2 were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Doc. 38. The Plaintiff then filed an objection to the Recommendation. Doc. 40. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintif
Summary: CORRECTED ORDER 1 MARC T. TREADWELL , District Judge . United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) because there is no genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the Defendants 2 were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Doc. 38. The Plaintiff then filed an objection to the Recommendation. Doc. 40. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintiff..
More
CORRECTED ORDER1
MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.
United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) because there is no genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether the Defendants2 were deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Doc. 38. The Plaintiff then filed an objection to the Recommendation. Doc. 40. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintiff's objection and has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Plaintiff first argues that in determining whether to grant the motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge should have only considered what the Defendants did between June 5, 2013, when evidence of the Plaintiff's hip pain was first recorded, and October 30, 2015, when the Plaintiff filed his lawsuit. Doc. 40 at 4. Considering any actions taken after the lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiff contends, would "reward defendants for taking substantial actions to mitigate Plaintiff's ailments and pain only after being sued-instead of when plaintiff was actually complaining and not getting the help he needed." Id. at 4-5. While it is true that the Magistrate Judge recounted instances in which the Plaintiff was prescribed pain medications following the filing of this lawsuit, this does not change the outcome. Doc. 38 at 17. Before the lawsuit was filed, Dr. Sachdeva continuously monitored and treated the Plaintiff for his hip pain. Indeed, it was Dr. Sachdeva who ordered an MRI, arranged for an orthopedic surgery, and recommended that the Plaintiff receive a hip replacement. Doc. 28-4 at 51-52, 75, 108. Clearly, there were delays, apparently administrative for the most part, and perhaps it could be argued that Dr. Sachdeva should have more aggressively pushed for approval of the surgery. However, this does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to show any genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his hip pain prior to the filing of his lawsuit.3
The Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
