TAYLOR v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

JAMES GRAHAM, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Georgia State Prison ("GSP") in Reidsville, Georgia, has filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 contesting his medical treatment during confinement. Defendant Cheatam ("Cheatam") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 52). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. No. 61). For the following reasons, Cheatam's Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.

Defendants Wetherington, Smith and Johnson filed a separate Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 58) addressed in a Report and Recommendation of even date.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff alleges that Cheatam and other GSP officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. From approximately March 3 to July 18, 2003, Plaintiff claims that GSP staff denied him medical treatment. Plaintiff contends that Cheatam did not take appropriate action during his sick call consultations.

Cheatam denies Plaintiff's allegation that he was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Cheatam avers that Plaintiff received all appropriate medical care and treatment. Cheatam contends that he prescribed Plaintiff the appropriate medication for his condition and is not responsible for ensuring that Plaintiff fills and takes prescribed medication. He asserts that Plaintiff has not suffered any damages for any alleged denial of medical treatment. (Doc. No. 53, p. 8.)

STANDARD OF DETERMINATION

Summary judgment should be granted 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 part[ies are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1223 (11th Cir. 2004). An issue of fact is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the case, and an issue of fact is "genuine" when it could cause a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the nonmoving party. Hickson Corp. v. Northern Crossarm Co., Inc., 357 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 2004). The court must determine "`whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'" Id. at 1260 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Williamson Oil Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287, 1298 (11th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the moving party must identify the portions of the record which establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Hickson, 357 F.3d at 1260 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed.2d 265 (1986)). When the nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party may discharge his burden by showing that the record lacks evidence to support the nonmoving party's case or that the nonmoving party would be unable to prove his case at trial. Id. In determining whether a summary judgment motion should be granted, a court must view the record and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Acevado v. First Nat'l Bank, 357 F. 3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY

The Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment imposes a constitutional duty upon prison officials to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of prison inmates. This duty to safeguard also embodies the principle expressed by the Court in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291, 50 L. Ed.2d 251 (1976), forbidding prison officials from demonstrating deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of inmates. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1976, 128 L. Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Like any deliberate indifference claim, the Estelle analysis incorporates both an objective and a subjective component. Hill v. DeKalb Reg'l Youth Detention Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 1994). The objective component is "contextual and responsive to `contemporary standards of decency.'" Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S. Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L. Ed.2d 156 (1992) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103, 97 S. Ct. at 290). Under that standard, "deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation only if those needs are `serious'." Hill, 40 F.3d at 1186 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S. Ct. at 1000). In the Eleventh Circuit, a medical need is serious if it "has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or [is] one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Hill, 40 F.3d 1187 (internal citations omitted). As to the subjective component, the Eleventh Circuit "has consistently held that knowledge of the need for medical care and intentional refusal to provide that care constitute deliberate indifference." Hill, 40 F.3d at 1186 (quoting Mandel v. Doe, 888 F.2d 783, 788 (11th Cir. 1989)). To demonstrate deliberate indifference in the medical context, Cheatam must have intentionally delayed access to medical care for such a period as to constitute the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537, 1543-44 (11th Cir. 1995).

Cheatam, a Physician's Assistant at GSP, asserts that he conducted Plaintiff's sick call visits between March and July 2003. During this time, Cheatam contends that he followed the appropriate treatment protocols and examined Plaintiff or made notations in his file when Plaintiff requested. Cheatam avers that he prescribed Plaintiff appropriate medication for his condition and is not responsible for ensuring that Plaintiff fills and takes each prescription. It is Cheatam's contention that Plaintiff received appropriate medical treatment and has not suffered damages as a result of his actions.

Plaintiff alleges that Cheatam and other GSP officials acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff states that he suffers from ulcerative colitis, a condition which causes defecation of blood, severe stomach cramps, and the development of potentially cancerous polyps. (Doc. No. 15, p. 3.) Plaintiff generally complains that GSP officials did not provide medical care for approximately 90 days. Plaintiff contends that Cheatam did not provide proper medical treatment and care for his condition.

Plaintiff has failed to establish Cheatam's deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. The record establishes that Cheatam provided Plaintiff with appropriate medical care for his continued and developing medical conditions. (Doc. No. 52.) Documents submitted by the parties establish that Plaintiff made several sick call requests regarding his health. During the relevant time period, Cheatam examined Plaintiff, appropriately diagnosed continued or new conditions, and treated his ailments on at least five occasions. (See id., Cheatam Aff., ¶¶ 11-16.) Cheatam acted promptly and appropriately to address Plaintiff's complaints. During each visit, Cheatam made notes in Plaintiff's medical records and promptly treated him or sought outside consultation. (Id. at ¶¶ 6 and 7.) Cheatam examined Plaintiff's complaints related to his ulcerative colitis and followed-up with the appropriate parties concerning his liquid diet and Rowasa enemas. Cheatam also treated Plaintiff's high blood pleasure, a hernia in his left testicle, and neck cramps. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Cheatam refilled Plaintiff's medications and scheduled him for follow-up telemedicine consultations with the appropriate physicians. In his deposition, Plaintiff admits that Cheatam is not responsible for physically providing the prescribed medication; Plaintiff has offered no proof contradicting Cheatam's contention that once prescribed, it is Plaintiff's responsibility to fill prescribed medication and take these medications as directed. (Doc. No. 51, p. 75; Doc. No. 62.) An affidavit submitted by Dr. Tommy Jones, a GSP physician, supports Cheatam's statements and outlines Plaintiff's repeated treatment during his incarceration. (See generally Doc. No. 58, Att. 1.) Medical records also demonstrate the consistency and appropriateness of Plaintiff's treatment. (Doc. No. 52.) Finally, a GSP investigation into Plaintiff's grievance revealed that Plaintiff received appropriate treatment, as well as his prescribed medication and his liquid diet. (Doc. No. 58, Att. 2, ¶ 7; Id., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding Cheatam's treatment of Plaintiff's medical needs.

It is unnecessary to address the remaining grounds upon which Cheatam has moved for summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is my RECOMMENDATION that Defendant Cheatam's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 52) be GRANTED. SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED. this 4^th day of October, 2005.