United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MYRON C. GLENN, Plaintiff,
CORIZON HEALTHCARE, INC., DR. HARESH B. PANDYA, M.D., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 76] AND GRANTING DEFENDANT DR. HARESH B.
PANDYA, M.D.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC.
CARAM STEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Myron C. Glenn, an inmate who wears an orthopedic brace due
to a childhood injury, filed his lawsuit against defendants
Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”) and Dr. Haresh
B. Pandya. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, by delaying his access to
an orthotic boot that would accommodate his ankle foot brace.
On May 3, 2019, the court accepted Magistrate Judge
Patti’s report and recommendation, granting
Corizon’s motion for summary judgment. On November 8,
2018, Dr. Pandya filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
that plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against him is
barred by the statute of limitations and that plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to
this claim. Magistrate Judge Patti issued a report and
recommendation on July 8, 2019. ECF No. 76 Plaintiff filed
timely objections to the report and recommendation which are
presently before the court.
first objection is that the magistrate judge is incorrect in
his premise that plaintiff knew about Dr. Pandya as early as
2012 when plaintiff has consistently stated that he did not
know the names or identities of the defendants who harmed
him. The magistrate judge cites to plaintiff’s
complaint to support his findings:
Plaintiff made several requests in “late 2011 and mid
2012, to Corizon staff for a new pair of boots, ” and
he was “told by Dr. Killaru, M.D.” “in mid
2012” that “his medical detail for orthopedic
boots had been discontinued by the RMO [Pandya].” (DE
12, ¶¶ 27- 28.) He further claims that his onsite
medical provider (P.A. Wierman) made at least three 407
requests for orthopedic boots between March and December
2013, which were denied by “the RMO (Dr. Pandya) and
Corizon higher-ups[.]” (Id. ¶¶
46-47.) Plaintiff contends that he was “again forced to
wear worn out boots” and that he “received
treatment for abscesses through November 2011, mid 2012, late
2012, mid 2013 and late 2013.” (Id.
¶¶ 48-49.) He complains that “[s]ince Corizon
Inc. and Dr. Pandya discontinued [his] special accommodation
for orthopedic boots in 2012, he has continuously been in
pain, OFTEN UNABLE TO WALK, AND WITH GREAT DIFFICULTY WHEN HE
COULD, and on occasion [he] has been unable to put any shoe,
boot, shower shoe, footwear on the affected foot.”
(Id. ¶ 65 (capitalization in original).)
ECF No. 76, PageID 867. Even if plaintiff did not know Dr.
Pandya by name, he knew the RMO was responsible for the
decisions at issue. This objection is overruled.
contends that he did not become aware of the fact that Dr.
Pandya was in violation of his rights for over two years
after his injury, when he found out that defendant was
disregarding his suffering by approving boots that were
non-orthopedic instead of orthopedic. Plaintiff maintains
that he relied on the medical advice he was given and
therefore could not be expected to discover that he was
receiving improper treatment until he eventually received
magistrate judge responded to plaintiff’s argument that
he was not aware of his claim against defendant until January
2014 by pointing to the allegations in the complaint, his
response brief, his affidavit and the medical record. See,
ECF No. 76, PageID 875. The cited allegations support the
magistrate judge’s conclusion that plaintiff concedes
he was aware of his injury at or near the time Dr. Pandya
allegedly denied him orthopedic boots in 2012. At the very
latest, plaintiff knew of his claim when Dr. Pandya retired
in July 2013. This objection is overruled.
third objection is that the magistrate judge relies on
misleading documents to support the finding that defendant
approved a request for orthopedic boots on December 4, 2011.
Plaintiff contends that in fact, defendant only approved
M.S.I. footwear at that time. The document relied on by the
magistrate judge is an approved request for a high top boot
for plaintiff. The document is shown to have been generated
by defendant Pandya. ECF No. 65, PageID 675. Contrary to
plaintiff’s contention, the magistrate judge does not
interpret the document to show that defendant approved an
orthopedic boot. In the following paragraph, the magistrate
judge recognizes that plaintiff claims the “alternative
footwear” caused pain and ulcers in the 2011 to 2013
time period. This objection is overruled.
next objects to the magistrate judge’s finding that he
did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to defendant
because his grievance was not specific enough to give
defendant notice. The magistrate judge concluded, and the
court agrees, that the grievance does not name defendant
Pandya, does not refer to the RMO, and does not refer to any
actions or inactions attributable specifically to defendant.
ECF No. 62-2, PageID 607, 609. Therefore, the grievance does
not give notice to defendant that he is a target of the
grievance. This objection is overruled.