Filed: Sep. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2013
Summary: OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in Danville Correctional Center, pursues claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs during his detention at Jerome Combs Detention Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he contracted a MRSA infection in February 2012 from which he did not fully recover until March 2012. Plaintiff's claims arise from the alleged denial of narcotic pain medicine, denial of physical therapy, denial
Summary: OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in Danville Correctional Center, pursues claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs during his detention at Jerome Combs Detention Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he contracted a MRSA infection in February 2012 from which he did not fully recover until March 2012. Plaintiff's claims arise from the alleged denial of narcotic pain medicine, denial of physical therapy, denial ..
More
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and incarcerated in Danville Correctional Center, pursues claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs during his detention at Jerome Combs Detention Center. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he contracted a MRSA infection in February 2012 from which he did not fully recover until March 2012. Plaintiff's claims arise from the alleged denial of narcotic pain medicine, denial of physical therapy, denial of a thicker mattress, failure to treat a rash, and failure to treat rectal bleeding.
On December 14, 2012, the Court directed Defendants to answer certain interrogatories. (d/e 98.) Defendants complied with that order. Before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion to compel answers to those interrogatories, which essentially asks for the Court to reconsider its 12/14/12 order. The Court has reviewed Defendants' responses to the interrogatories which the Court directed Defendants to answer. Those answers are responsive. The Court is still of the opinion that the remaining interrogatories are argumentative, overly broad, seek irrelevant information, or are already answered by the information provided in Defendants' summary judgment motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied (d/e 99). Discovery remains closed.
2) At the summary judgment stage, the Court has a general practice of requiring Defendants to attach Plaintiff's entire deposition and Plaintiff's medical records during the relevant time period. Defendants' motion for summary judgment attaches only parts of Plaintiff's deposition. Additionally, whether all the medical records for the relevant time period are attached is unclear. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied in its present form (d/e 101). By September 30, 2013, Defendants are directed to file a summary judgment motion with a complete copy of Plaintiff's deposition and a copy of all of Plaintiff's medical records from September 1, 2009 to March 31, 2011.
3) Plaintiff's response to Defendants' summary judgment motion is due October 31, 2013.
