Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. Prison Health Services

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 1, 2017

JESSE YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

          DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MONA K. MAJZOUB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Jesse Young, currently incarcerated at the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, Michigan, filed this pro se civil rights action on August 18, 2016, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Prison Health Services, Paula Caldwell, [1] Mary Velarde, Christine M. Pigg, Nurse Practitioner Poma, and Stephen Braman[2] violated his rights as secured by the First and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Docket no. 1.) This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Verified Motion to Give Consent and Verified Motion to Enter Default Judgment (docket no. 14), to which Defendants have not responded. Also before the Court is Defendants Caldwell, Velarde, Pigg, and Braman's (the MDOC Defendants) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket no. 19.) Plaintiff responded to the MDOC Defendants' Motion, and the MDOC Defendants replied to Plaintiff's Response. (Docket nos. 20, 21.) Plaintiff also filed a Reply to the MDOC Defendants' Reply, which is nearly identical to his Response. (Compare docket no. 20 with docket no. 22.) This action has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Docket no. 5.) The Court has reviewed the pleadings, dispenses with oral argument on the motion pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f) and issues this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

         I. RECOMMENDATION

         For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Defendants Caldwell, Velarde, Pigg, and Braman's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 19) be GRANTED; Plaintiff's Verified Motion to Give Consent and Verified Motion to Enter Default Judgment (docket no. 14) be DENIED; and Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed in its entirety.

         II. REPORT

         A. Background

         In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was denied medical care for his ongoing severe kidney and liver pain and exposure to tuberculosis, despite filing multiple grievances and health care requests regarding the issue. (Docket no. 1 at 3-5.) According to Plaintiff, the pain was possibly caused by a medication that he had been taking, Depakote, which Defendant Caldwell allegedly forcibly administered to Plaintiff even though he provided her with written notice that his prescription was discontinued. (Id. at 3.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Braman wrote a false misconduct ticket against him, as a result of which, Plaintiff was unable to visit the law library, the instant Complaint was delayed, Plaintiff lost his prison job, Plaintiff's parole eligibility was examined, and Plaintiff was removed from prison programs recommended by the parole board. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff asserts deliberate indifference, malpractice, negligence, retaliation, and excessive force as causes of action in this matter. (Id. at 6-8.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. (Id. at 9.)

         B. Governing Law

         The MDOC Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Docket no. 19.) Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party 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). The moving party has the burden of showing an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Covington v. Knox Cnty. Sch. Sys., 205 F.3d 912, 915 (6th Cir. 2000). Rule 56 expressly provides that:

         A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.