Watson v. Delaware Correctional Center, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY DAVID L. WATSON, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE CORRECTIONAL, CENTER, ROBERT SNYDER,) LAWRENCE MCGUIGAN, CHARLES S. CUNNINGHAM, JOSEPH BELANGER, DELAWARE MEDICAL ) SER VICES, IN C., GEORGIA L. PERDUE, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 02C-03-127 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Date Submitted: April 30, 2002 Date Decided: May 22, 2002 ORDER DISMISSED David L. Watson (pro se), Smyrna , Delaw are, Plain tiff. Richard W. Hubbard, Esq. of the State of Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State Defendants. Kevin J. Connors, Esq. of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (incorrectly designated as Delaware Medical Services, Inc. ) and Georgia L. Perdue. Watson v . Delawa re Correc tional Cen ter, et al. C.A. No. 02C-03-127 HLA May 22, 2002 Page 2 On this 22nd day of May 2002, upon consideration of evidence submitted at the bench trial, an d legal me morand um filed b y both sides, it app ears to the C ourt that: (1) David L. W atson ( Plaintiff ) is a prison inma te at the Delaware Correction al Center ( DCC ) in Smyrna , Delawa re. Plaintiff alleg es that he ha s chronic arthritis for which he takes Naprosyn, an anti-inflammatory drug. Plaintiff contends that his doctor in formed h im to take N aprosyn one hour bef ore or one hour after a meal to prevent stomach problems, such as an ulcer, from occurring. Plaintiff contends that the DCC s blanket drug policy, requiring inmates to take their medications at a scheduled time and under medical supervision, caused him physical and emotional pain and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff s medical needs. Thus, Plaintiff filed this suit on March 12, 2002 alleging a violation of the Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution, making this an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (2) The Prison Litigation R eform Act of 1995 ( PLR A ), 42 U.S.C . § 1997e(a), states in releva nt part: No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. The United States Supreme Court recently held: Watson v . Delawa re Correc tional Cen ter, et al. C.A. No. 02C-03-127 HLA May 22, 2002 Page 3 the PLRA s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong. Porter v. N ussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S. Ct. 983, 992 (2002). Thus, the PLRA mandates the dismissal of an action where a prison has failed to file a grievance and/or exhaust admin istrative r emed ies with in the pr ison system . (3) DCC has a formal grievance system. Plaintiff did not file a grievance on the subject matter of this lawsuit before commencing this action.1 Thus, Plaintiff has failed to exhau st his adm inistrativ e reme dies. For t he fo rgoing re ason s the com plain t is he reby DISMISSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ___________________________ ALFORD , J. Original: Prothonotary s Office - Criminal Div. 1 Plaintiff previously filed a medical grievance with the DCC Grievance Office, thus he knew that a gri evanc e system e xisted.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
