United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Paul L. Maloney
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KENT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a pro se civil rights action brought by a state
prisoner at a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)
facility pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is
now before the Court defendant Richard Worel, D.O.'s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 59).
to the amended complaint, while plaintiff was incarcerated at
the Alger Correctional Facility in July 2004, he injured his
right knee “during a workout routine doing
squats.” Amend. Compl. (ECF No. 9, PageID.48). Over the
course of the next 13 years, plaintiff's knee has gotten
worse. Medical personnel have ordered x-rays, which show the
slow deterioration of the knee. The specific allegations
against Dr. Worel are as follows:
While at Cotton Prison in 2017, Dr. Penrose told me that she
wanted me to do 20 crunches, then do 50 crunches a day.
Impossible, with a bad knee. Also to do 10 leg extensions
every hour, every day for two weeks while awake. Then: In
April 2017, Dr. Worel wanted me to do exercises, from lower
back pain exercises to crunches [yet again]. He also wants me
to exacerbate this pain by doing these exercises.
Furthermore, he has me taking 400 mg of ibuprofen/Motrin, and
2 Tylenol @325 mg to mask the pain. Both of these doctors are
refusing to have my right knee replaced. They're both
deliberately indifferent to my serious medical needs.
For his relief, plaintiff wants, among other things, a
payment of $218, 000.000.00, knee replacement surgery at the
hospital of his choice, that “the defendants'
employer release both the plaintiff and the
plaintiff's husband, James Allen Gilde III 459854,
without parole, ” and that he be removed from
the sex offender registry. PageID.52 (emphasis in original).
The Court previously granted Dr. Penrose's motion for
summary judgment. See Order (ECF No. 55). This
matter is now before the Court on defendant Dr. Worel's
motion for summary judgment.
Motions for summary judgment
court shall grant summary judgment 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). Rule 56 further 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).
Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995),
the court set forth the parties' burden of proof ...