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.

Lanning v. Worel

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

July 31, 2019

MICHAEL LANNING, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD WOREL and UNKNOWN PENROSE, Defendants.

          Hon. Paul L. Maloney

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          RAY KENT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This is 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).

         I. Plaintiff's complaint

         According 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.

         PageID.48. 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, ”[1] 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.

         II. Motions for summary judgment

         A. Legal standard

         “The 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).

         In Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995), the court set forth the parties' burden of proof ...


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.