United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
STEVEN L. SPILLMAN
JAY RUSSELL ET AL.
A. DOUGHTY, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HAYES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the undersigned Magistrate Judge, on reference from the
District Court, is a motion for summary judgment filed by
defendants Sheriff Jay Russell, Warden Pat Johnson, and Nurse
Donna Norman (“Defendants”). [doc. # 39]. The
motion is opposed. For reasons set forth below, it is
recommended that the motion be GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
Steven Spillman, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, is a former pretrial detainee at the Ouachita
Correctional Center (“OCC”) in Louisiana. He
filed the instant suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights
by failing to provide him adequate medical care. [docs. # 1,
9]. Specifically, he alleges that prior to his incarceration
at OCC, he re-ruptured the quadriceps tendon in his left leg
on which he previously had surgery. He claims the medical
staff at OCC was aware of his condition but Defendants
delayed or failed to treat him, denied him medication,
refused to send him to a specialist, and took away his leg
brace [doc. # 9]. Plaintiff seeks damages for mental and
physical pain, an order instructing OCC to change its medical
policies, and to be sent to a hospital for
April 18, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion for
summary judgement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56. [doc. # 39]. Defendants claim Plaintiff's suit fails
Plaintiff has failed to show that he (1) had a serious
medical need of which these Defendants had actual knowledge
and to which these Defendants were deliberately indifferent,
and (2) that the deliberate indifference was pursuant to the
official policy of the Sheriff's office such that the
policy caused Plaintiff's alleged harm.
[doc. # 39-1 at 1]. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
response, claiming summary judgment should be denied because
a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether
Defendants provided proper medical care. [doc. # 46].
Defendants did not file a reply.
20, 2019, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's March 22,
2019 motion to compel discovery [doc. # 30] and ordered
Defendants to produce OCC's policies concerning medical
care and sick call procedures, finding the policies
“necessary to resolving Defendants' motion as it
relates to Plaintiff's” municipal liability claim.
[doc. # 47]. The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to file a
supplement to his opposition, and permitted Defendants to
file a reply. Plaintiff filed a supplemental opposition.
[doc. # 50]. Defendants did not file a reply.
judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if proof
of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of
the lawsuit under the applicable law in the case.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A dispute about a material fact is
“genuine” if the evidence is such that a
reasonable fact-finder could render a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Id.
party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247). The moving party may
meet its burden “by pointing out that the record
contains no support for the non-moving party's
claim.” Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283
F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2002). If the nonmoving party is then
unable to point to anything in the record to support its
claim, summary judgment is appropriate. Id.
considering the evidence in a motion for summary judgment,
the court construes “all facts and inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010).
The court will resolve factual disputes in favor of the
nonmoving party, “but only when there is an actual
controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted
evidence of contradictory facts.” Alvarez v. City
of Brownsville, 904 F.3d 382, 389 (5th Cir. 2018). Rule
56 mandates the entry of summary judgment if the nonmoving
party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party's
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. In
such a situation, there is “no ...