WIMER v. GRADY et al, No. 2:2005cv02040 - Document 14 (D.N.J. 2005)
Court Description: LETTER OPINION re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by GRADY, . Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 9/19/05. (gh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WIMER v. GRADY et al Doc. 14 Case 2:05-cv-02040-WJM-RJH Document 14 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY M AR TIN LU THER KIN G JR . FED ER AL BLD G . & U .S. C O U R THO U SE 50 W ALN U T ST R EET, P.O . BO X 419 N EW AR K, N J 07101-0419 (973) 645-6340 WILLIAM J. MARTINI JUDGE LETTER OPINION September 19, 2005 VIA REGULAR MAIL Dennis L. Wimer 878274-C C.R.A.F. E-2-F P.O. Box 7450 Trenton, NJ 08628 PRO SE (Plaintiff) Stephen E. Siegrest, Esq. Murphy & O Connor, LLP 1810 Chapel Avenue West Suite 130 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-4607 (Attorney for Defendant) Re: Wimer v. Grady et al Docket No.: 05-2040 (WJM) Dear Litigants: This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Grady s unopposed motion for summary judgment. There was no oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. For the reasons set forth below, Grady s motion is GRANTED and, accordingly, the Complaint against him is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I. Factual Background Because a full recapitulation of the allegations in the Complaint is not necessary to resolution of this motion, the Court will not do so here. For present purposes, it suffices to point Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-02040-WJM-RJH Document 14 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 2 of 2 out that the Complaint alleges Grady served as the medical director at Bergen County Jail during all relevant time periods. It further alleges that Plaintiff suffers from debilitating headaches but has not received proper medical treatment since his admission to Bergen County Jail. Plaintiff attributes this alleged neglect in part to Grady s failure properly to train and supervise his medical staff. Plaintiff has filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 and has requested injunctive relief as well as damages in the amount of $35 million. II. Standard of Review Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Rule 56(e) requires that when a motion for summary judgment is made, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See id.; see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law will preclude the entry of summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48. If the evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could find in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment should not be granted. See id.; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). III. Defendant Grady s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted Grady submits in his moving papers that, although he once served as the medical director at Bergen County Jail, he left that position on July 1, 2004, some six months before the alleged mistreatment took place. He therefore argues that (1) he played no role in treating Plaintiff, and (2) he could not have been responsible for supervising the work of or training those physicians and nurses who did in fact treat Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not contested any of these above submissions. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Grady bears responsibility for the alleged suffering he has endured or currently endures. IV. Conclusions For the foregoing reasons, Grady s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and, accordingly, the Complaint against him is DISMISSED. An appropriate Order accompanies this Letter Opinion. s/William Martini ________________________________ WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J. cc: The Honorable Ronald J. Hedges, U.S.M.J. Ian Doris, Esq.
]]>
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.
