Maley v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al, No. 4:2016cv00060 - Document 97 (S.D. Ga. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and dismissing as moot in part 52 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing as moot 61 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing as moot 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting with prejudice 87 Motion to Dismiss. The parties 65 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of Corizon, LLC from this action is granted. The Clerk is directed to amend the caption. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/27/17. (wwp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maley v. Corizon Health, Inc. et al Doc. 97 I Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNTTED STilTES DTSTRTCT COURT FOR THE SOIITIIERN DTSTRTCT OF GEORGIA U. S. DISTRICTCOURT SouthernOistrictof GA Filed fn Offlce SAVANTTAS DIVISTON BELINDA LEE MALEY, ind ividua IIy and on behalf of the Estate of M a L t h e w C Jr n t o n L o f l i n , d e c e a s e d ; a n d G E N EL O I ' L I N , inCividually, Dl:i nt i f f c CASENO. CV416_O60 V. C O R I Z O NH E A L T H , I N C . , A D e l a w a r e C o r p o r a t i o n ; C O RI ZO N , LLC, a Missouri Limited L iab il iLy Company.'CHATHAM C O U N T Y ,a G e o r g i a C o l r n t y ; R O Y H A R R I S ; E S T A T EO F A L S T . LAWRENCE'JOHN WILCHER, j ndi vidual ly ancl in hj s of f -iciai capaciuy as Jail A d m i n j s L r a ' ] - o r ; S C O T TK E NN E D Y , M . D . ; A D A M A RG O N Z A L E Z ,M . D . , and VIRGINIA O'NEILl.Defendant s ORDER Before Lawrence's Joint a ^ r r - 1 -r , (Doc. B7)/ (Doc. Wifcher Court M o Li o n Consent Ch:thrm LLC the a r e the for Motion to and John and AL For St. (Doc. Sunrnary Judgment and the parties' 65) Defendants John Wilcher the 52), and Al St. Lhe paruies, Dism.iss Defendants Virginia O'Nei1l, T. Official Capacity Wilcher Stipulation following Lawrence's Motion in of his Dismissal reasons, for of Corizon, Defendants John Summary Judgment is GRANTED TN PAST Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 2 of 19 parLies' ConsenL MoLion Lo Dlsmiss Charham CounLy, and John Wilcher 87) and che parriesr DeIendanus Virginia in his Official Jo-inL Stipulation (Doc. Capacicy Dismissal of O'Neil l, of Corizon, LLC (Doc. 65 ) are GRAI{TED . This death of Loflin He case hefd Detention Defendant to Pugh was che detainees (ld. ) acci ng Pugh provided al I At Attach. at 2L) Defendant (Doc. 58, Corizon as the Attach. 2 at 2). DefendanL O'Nei-I-l had a variety After to that his deteriorate. Loflin arrest (Doc. suffered 52, from in Attach. at a contract Dr. Charl-es empfoyed As medicat was afso by director, hea_Lthcare manner. employed by administrator service C o . r r rLryr vvurr provided a cosc efficienr health I.) Lofl-in, s to times, of non-clinical and arrivaf of and monicored services As time ("Corizon") 20.) O'Neilf health ChaLham director care Virginia Defendant Lhe relevant expenses Lo ensure care was provided (Id. 2 at C C D Cp u r s u a n t 5 at paEient direcc 52, At.tach, the medical subsequent 6,2014, fnc. the at and On February at At Heafth onsite (Id,, Defendant Corizon. Dr. (Id. ) Corizon Chatham County. /noc. ^6r-: i^^^ ('CCDC"). services incarceration 2Q14. (Doc. 1.) in ^.A-i-i.r as Center detention, the of ^n .1,,r^ ^hrrdae was arrested medical out Matthew LofIin ii/as with arises at CCDC. administrator, duties. lId.) CCDC, Loflin, s heal-th beqan 2.) Pugh believed 2 p p e u m o n i a. at (Id. , Dr. Attach. 5 at 2B. ) Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 3 of 19 BeLween lrebruary 1, with 16 encounters and declded 5 to Dr. admit 28,) ac that Loflln him to In the 17. ) The function" (ld, at that 11, believed that ---,,ina^ i* Lo (Id. 2.) 26.) jndicared After Loffin not granL hin was either hospital for coulo only senc direccly an appointmenr to admit him to concernsr remained in Aff met wlth discuss wiLh the however, er a "faj rIy infirmary. (Id., Lhese f,nFl Defendant John had resulLs, Dr. care coufd than prrch's n-. (Id. care. physician (Id. at (Id., 17.) Wl1cher, treatment and nnran vYrqrr' CCDC Jail to request Pugh Lo admlr at 16-17.) to 2 at r^a,, lcrur if scheduled corld Despite Dr. he [or decide pugh. s a hospiLat ano 2.) r < Lr, nr o ,s 'r^_ h trr . Adminlstrator, to be nocili6n a hospiLal who then Attach. achr:carrli at poor "very i ndependent authoriLy wag noL rransferred in'< (Id. 2014. t-o rhe emergency room, or hospital. obtaininr-r the Pugh ordered Dr, have been admiLteC to an offsiLe .Loflin -7-l oL \fur r , { ti h was provided severe cardiomyopathy, " more intensive t h e C C D Ci n f i r m a r y . Loflln's h e a . lt h LofIin needed more intensive a L L h e C C D Cd j d RaLher, Loffjn in worsen, that obtaining r - - r : - -' -r -" a. .! y . a to revealed .^n^ to at continued -r^a Loflin CCDCmedica] 2,J 2 at LofIin's an echoca.rdiogram on March 26, echocardiogram hearL the inf irmary. care, condition obtain Attach. Pugh became concerned for around the c]ock medical As Loflin's (Id., Corizon medical- staff. 2074, On March 24, ALLach. 20L4 and March 23, 2414, LoLI In had aL least have to Loflin Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 4 of 19 the that and Defendant Shorfl v Wilcher made his efforts but released, afler r-onf ar-f e6 the Attach. al I "advlsed 'L^v iail of lhese symptoms were heart failure. Pugh, Loflin (Id. , was transported Apr11 Immediarely afLer this to Memoriaf the hospitaL After: suit Loflin. (Doc, 1,) 5 to and In at Hospital. (Id.. Lof l-in's on in (Id. the behalf pain At 12.) (DOc. and 55, who difficulty Pugh stated of (Id. 5 Attach. 2 at Brenda mother/ the an amended complaint' 1'l died at 3)Maley' Estate Loflln's at admitued aI: I1 . ) LofLin Attach. Dr ' of an offsite with cardioJogist the that congesrive request the (Id. ' of, at CCDC infirmary' d.iagnosis 28 . ) appol nlmenc, Loffin (Id.) chest a nf Nurse Thrift, an appointment 2AL4. 24, 20L4. death, j-ndiviclually 1, Heafth on April his wjrh I c Subsequently, SLatuS. C44-C10.) Dr' 4 at Attach. on of LofIin's getting af.rr-.rt T.nfIin'S complain +L^+ Lrrar Pugh, Defendant Wilcher Dr, remained cardlologist Loflin with consistent of "unsuccessfuf. " Loffifr to cost about status." time, this -r^.1 DLdL-cq 10. ) at lLoflin'sl (Doc. 52, Attach ' breathing. (Id. wpre +rrYg+ ru9rr ,.lot:i Defendant Wil-cher spoke with 2.\ continued he potential- "inquiries" i n n ' r i rL ve Dr. 21 ' ) lWifcher] " conversation IWiLcher] During where the tell condition. medical lLoflin'sl on the "didn't he 5 at Attach. was focused conversation care (Id. ' on bond. released of brought Matthew father/ Gene Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 5 of 19 lof lin -e*r-r-h- s- 1a *n-r"r-ar n l l r ; (Doc. naf 92.) 6n/i:n l the i^Ti l ^h6. de-liberately detained In al of t urr|j 42 to U.S. C. Wi L c h e r argues protected Wilcher view, in hic Lhat from suit. is not ' ir ^' l-'^- in.]irr iffs Plainr for rho this alleoe Lhac and has filed were need while actj-on seek.ing a l1c',.raA needs - ,*r*.j1ly. cle Fenrla r^r q - nanacl They have fifed S I 1 9 83 ir]rrr'l se.rious medicaf medical Defendant S u r n m a - r yJ u d g m e n L r e q u e s t i n g him hie h is de'l i\ar=r^ subsequenL (Td. ) response/ ,a..l^inql- in l,offin's Loflin's to wrongluL deach. "i CCDC. (Id.) the indrfference c,rit Amended Complainr-. indifferent damaqes under In inined Wilcher rhaL i-.li"r.l"-' he is (Id.) entitled Defendant Wifcher to this CourL dismjss u o 1 , d r - L- y . ' enrj Ll ed co The Plaintiffs quallfied violated Motion (Doa aIl 52.) qual i fied Matthew Loffin's claims Derenoant i m m u ni r y contend that immunity, for and Defendant because in their constitutional I Afthough the Amended Complaint (Doc. 95) was filed after rrje motions consldered in this Order, the cl-aims in the CompLaint (Doc. 1) and the Amended Complaint are identical. with the exception of adding cene Loflin as a plaintiff 1n the farrer. The Court sees no reason to dismiss the pendingr motions as moot as the merits of the claims are unaffected. ,' ^ , Orrgr.nalIy, the motion sought suflimary judgment on behalf of both Defendants Wil-cher and the Estate of Former Sheriff Al St. Lawrence (Doc. 52,) However, che parties later agreed to drsmiss aff cfaims against Defendant St, Lawrence. (Doc. 58.) On April, 1 9 , 2 0 7 1, t h j s Court ordered that the Estate of Former Sheriff A1 St. Lawrence shoufd be dismissed from this case with (Doc. 60.) Therefore, prejudice. the Summary .Iudqment Motion as i t p e r t a i n s t o D e f e n d a n t S t . L a w r e n c e i s D I S M I S S E DA S M O O T . Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 6 of 19 righr when he acted wiLh defiberate medi-cal,needs. (Doc. 55, ) fn to Defendant Lhe partres have afsc addj.tion JudEment, disnissals. Motion Specifjcally, Dismiss to Wilcher in his partjes have filed indifference Wlfcher's filed Motion a parLies Lhe to for ser_es have Loflin's Summarv sr jpu_Iared of filed Consent Virqinia John . I the offi-i a Chatham CoLrnty, and iO,Nei1l, l n:nlni r., / n^^. 8l . ) Additionally, SLipulaLion of Dismissal of Corizon, LLC, (Doc. 65 . ) ANATYSIS D E F E N D A N T W I ] . C H E R ' S M O T I O N F O R S U M M A R YJ U D G M E N T I. A. Standard According party Review of to Federal nay move for defense-or judgment is sought. " movant shows that Ihe "purpose and to assess genuine need for Radio Corp., E6 artrri <nrrr ot the is claim idenLifying of musl entitl-ed to proof see trial,, t-t a- _ e order to " Matsushita 5 14 , notesJ. 587 as to (1986) EIec. 'pierce summary .,if Indus. the of 1aw,.' Lhe pleadings whether (quoting "tal any material- judgment as a matter to in which granted be no genuine dispute 56(a), e a c h c 1 a _ L mo r defense-on motion a procedure Civil s u m . ' nray j u d g m e n t i s 475 U.S. cammi Such there fact. and the movant is Id. each of of judgmenc, s u m m ar y part the Rule there Co. v. Fed. R. is a Zenith Civ. p. Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 7 of 19 iq Srrrn: rrlirrdononi- to make a showing eLemenL essentiaL bear will action the (11th Cir. ae proof at the whether Mifls an existence of Celotex " element is Corp. Iaw governing essentlal-. 887 Co. , an party and on which that triaf. Abrasive "faiIs DeLong 1499, E.2d 1505 r989). qrlnram6 L r'rs J JV- r-h6 tAl [{qsh. v. case, nonmovant 322 (1986) . The substantive 3 L ' 1, deternines fo. Equr!. of r.rhgn lhg estabfish to Lhat party's to 477 U. S Catrett, sufficient burden the annrnn-i:re ri:11 I-",-r inirial of the \/ a l r jrt L v v^ u soalzinn ^-.-1^.i-^^. E21PId-Lrrc\./! <rrrnm: r \ j/ i r r d r r m o n' vt _ _ Jf,sy r-^--^ rJEa!r " -<- '1- y s u: 1- w Lllc responsibility its basis for court of informing the distrjct motion, and identifying those nr'\ri- i ^ne nf t-ha nl a,e,-ii nae ^-a_ny n c_i _ I i n- r- _ . _ . t s , answers to i n t e r r o ga t o r i e s , a n d a d m i s s j o n s o n f i I e , LogeLher with the affidavits, if any, which it beLieves demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. CeIotex, 417 nonmovant. to - I^ere is : at 323 estabfish, by The gorng nanrr'ne i ssue aS to Cfark case. U.S. v. burden then horznnrl rho fact s material Coats & Clark shifts nl to to o . r r - li n a c the th.a I nonmovant/ s the 929 E.2d 604, 608 (llth Cir. 199r). The facuual to the Court must inferences review arisjng from nonmovant. Matsushita, nonmoving party some metaphysical "musr the evidence it in 475 U,S. the at do more Lhan simply doubt as to and lighr alf r e as o n a b l e most 587-88 . However. show rhaL the maLeria.L facts.,, f a v o r a b . Le Id. Lhere at the is 596. A Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 8 of 19 mere .scint i 1l a" wilf not 1422, suffice. (11th 7423 f ar-.' f 'rdoand thac then of ..9., Cir. 1998). mav "d-aw Court v. nr Sg". more L,q^ri/ v. Nevert CarLer e f. € t.han one . 3I A 883 F.24 923, 93 a 135 F.3d l-ho f^-fa m:l-cri:l frr-f l.,,.--^-r I u'.rgr,is'rL DurLu!Lo! y t11 fh innc reasonable frnm nf g a nt n t- lan:r- Prods.. ca i to rl where n. er l genu in a refFse shoufd Brlerton, c ir.nl Tidwell creaLes inference the Barfield evidence, air // , Tqe0i B. Quaf if j-ed Inr-rnunity In argues h., his ar:l iFiari af tt1 ^r\/ l/ould air /roa?\ \ known.' Th- inSUbStantial ;t iOra o r r a rl r f Yug government .)- fhair ierl and q|'rmav\/ inoividual !r !i o ! uz l rli en-ar v. Cur{y, i^h.rv rrrthnrilrr e s v r r v ! 4 e ) ' 73 8 E. 3d 1 2 4 6, 1qf Lo Il c ..avoid '/ L249 R1a excessj ve many of 4 rr? 4rr'nvr ne1'SOn Ann resol ut ion Ehe irrri.rment o.rahlished a is permiL ehr^'^- -a:c^n:hl tri r 1.'nr-ra1ri imnr,nity capacity : wh inh c.a Wil cher i- m -.m . r .r ur rn-i-tL\ j7 \vio'ate.loariv rr tvv DefendanL his \luui r irhfs H:rlari in \\nrr:1if \ I-hir Eranklin ^. ClaimS J\ ?- . 1 officiaIs the l.-i1-inr] ^^r- of )nn " Judgment, from suir /\ u| )vnLn, :ni -1.1nq- irrrr ).'1?\ dis rupt ion rr . Fioi:lc .\- Sumnary protected rnIess have lllth for imm,rni1- I'ahiIitv f-om q!A1 he js that .r^\/A.nmanf r e s ! s e v ! J Motj on l-c 819. ln rr.\/c'n'rF- was orde-r t acting Rousseau, to nffi-ia1 i/jLhin 780 F.3d rai se naS his 1108, +L^ the /li J^r.^-.^^ initial e,+/61 11i1 t i ^n ^f ].,- r,-, t1'1fh a,r: l i r ia,.l imm,'- f ir., rluL,qlr!!yr Yuu'!'lsv d .{-^ .rlth^.i Clr. 1 \' 2AL5). \/r'l n a r r : n- - . r 1 4 fn this 1::*-' v. casef Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 9 of 19 the panies was burden r -r'"- il- .r wichin shifts to right was nro-l arises ri:l under the Jackson v. prair-rffs due process 181 West, viofated due to Defendant serious viofation and prevaiL medical need, serfous I The on a claim a pre-tria1 pa rL-ies to detainee that need; tha E an F. 3d 11BB, (2) and of the this alleged Right .edcrrrr:I the a (111h Lo show a care indifference to ci a l to a a defiberate causation between is within act I ng to show: "(1) defendant's offi was constitutional must be able (3) 2015) . indifference deliberate and r-ara Amendment. Cir. medical deliberate the modir-:1 Fourteenth :-352 To of (2) ag ree time rioht need. medicaf indifference 1345, Wifcher's medicaf Loflin's j-- of -,^.lir,s .ha- alla,re the e cfause F.3d 284 1112- rI i ar Yh j - r tne qualified that riqht, of a Constitutional dct:iroa'e DefendanC must prove thaL "(1) constitutional at nis auLhority, Ferraro, Plaintifls 780 F.3d at Vafderrama, Because show "to w;thin acring cimes,l -' do so, a was discretionary estabfished 1. Violation A Io viofated clear.Ly violation." his ' =t-a x 2002). defendant rcl erra-t Plaintiffs n^l- 1,194 (11Lh Cir. the :lI acL ing then W:Icher Defendanc artrhor'l- \/ at cli sr-rer'onA-rz Wilcher that agree .rn that cne j r r vh6 di screL -onary auLhoricy when "Jv! of medlcaf treatment should hF nr.\/i "la'l h: ead on a n inmace, s needs, See Keele v. Glvnn Ct ., 938 F. Supp. 2d'l 270, 1309 (S.D. m:kinn \:d' on i a\ 4vrJl. : doni<inn re urh:l Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 10 of 19 indifference rnrl rha nl:infiff'< 588 E. 3d I29I , 1306-07 (11th Cir. Inc., a. Serious medical fhit T , o fI i n I ikel w ac the while obvious of tr.3d 557, 558 Jay l -h e a doCt:ar' (11th detained LofLin heart even likeIy failure sat LsIied of Loffln's at Loflin prove only but a.Iso that deliberate Defendant serious this fn case, suf fered a care the to of a serious at feasL medica.L evidence The Court is enough evidence suflunarv'iudqment. viol-ation, LofIin had a serious need. to order prove Pl-aintiffs subjective harm; and (2) disregard of 10 must medjcal be need/ indifferent Defendant knowledge Lhat rLsk Plaintiffs however/ was de.Liberately " (1) 626 Defendant !{ilcher Defendant Wilcher Wifcher's c:ryh^n indi fference that indifference, Lne f Pugh. Dr. survive constitutional In is pneumonia and congestive frorn both under prove from Lhat recognize have provided PlainLLf fs have provided have to medical v^ ,.rrnF " one or easjly would condition one LhaL has "been treatment CCDC. Plaintiffs medicaL condition not that person establish to medlcal need is atLenIion. b. Del iberate To serious rnandat in4 2010). Int' 1 2009) a medical suffered while thaL S Cir. cha I I encre that need while that as thaL ner:osci * rr does nof nh'zc jr-'ar Taser rr enough evidence from CCDC. A serious l-'r, : di:nnrse.J suffered M:nn need have identified The Pfaintiffs so // ini"rrr Wtlcher's able of to to a risk show of (31 by conducr rnaE Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 11 of 19 is more tnan mere negl lgence." E.3d 842, (11th Cir. 850 this hJilcher case, claim Wifcher al Dlaintif Firsl- Defendant Wilcher aL B. ) but his fr-.--.-r:-._ ran^yr- -L:- 6.l LofLin that atLempts knew that this to Loflin condltion. (Doc. 55 j.^ 10.) AfLer and (Id. chat at f rom 12. ) hi and (Id. djd not r-o-.li ri ^n (!q.) Dr. s Js rqr PnEe Pugh pi61.5 The record conversations jury medicaf he sr Pnu uer r - i , i r - Pugh reports a D u, Y' nr h ! discussion, Defendant released, nF care would be expensive. --s1-Fd these condilion. care was discussed, thjs r-^ Dr. but had a serious h6r'l.'aan l o r - l a a ir r n , rs Loflin's of Defendant Defendant "unsuccessful ." Lofl1n whether Pugh reporEed on bond, discusslon have 182 occasions meet- abouL result were Fofey/ two that was exchanged, from attempts the a Dr, as !o medical $t i I ^uar released undevefoped as to l,,lilcher's at na{6r,-t5nl be information ciLe wilcher 5 v. 856 medjcal which Loffin's discussed Arcach. 52, fs during Sheritf, loflin's Ieast 4t LofIin's deposj tion, raLhe-r only (Doc. that In ,..i-h cra:12 on was made aware of B-q. \ McElligott disagree knowledge oI that Dang v. 1999) ) . parties the had subjeccive Plaintiffs (citing 2 0 l - 1) E.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. In Dang ex rel, how much or that Defendant Plainrilfs Wilcher, s could condition. ts argue subsequent infer that (Doc. 55 at he B- 9.) Further, CCDC and Plainciffs inquiring as poinL to Lo DefendanL Wilcher Loffin/ 11 s status. (Id. at phoning rhe 8-9. ) The Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 12 of 19 details of However, it spoke with at appears are that N.rrse ThrifL Plaintiffs 2.) that cafl this or must condiLion argue have been these n' Iof (Doc. at 3-6. ) Lestimony medical lnformed li-'s fail,s condition rhac Lo f I in' s of evidence of his knowledge shown aL feasL !o creare the Light Loffin's the favorable dispuLe Court to the of that actual any l^ac-if - ized, Pugh's Dr. discuss of LofI.Ln's the phone cal-t Defendant (Id. Wi-fcher at 3-6. ) that condition, he never Plaintiffs DeIendanr Wilcher's iact. consider not s medica I needs. Ar these nonmovinq party. 1t record knowledge he could correct material must i -a ' condition. Lo Loffin' medicaf of medicaf L o s u r r u Trrya l u o g m e n t b e c a u s e may be enough evidence a genuine proceedings, most of the had and that subjective [erent Wilcher noL show that enritled have been del i oerate I y indif WhiLe Defendant to medicaf D ef e n d a n u a r g u e s t h a L h e i s any Pugh did insuffici.lent in contends Defendant Wilcher with a the ac 9-10.) he -a6lr l calf before serious (ld. show that Wilcher Dr. status evidence hiS Arrach. from this Loflln's the or Defendant is acLua-L-Ly knew direct of to condition esLabfishes Nurse Thrift without Loflin's record. CCDC and {fd., coul-d .infer knew of argues that conversations krnwledoe 59 "status." speaking wirh Nurse Thrifr. while two ca-l-led the tr{ifcher a jury that the in developed aboLE Loflin's Defendant Wifcher to Defendant Defendant WiLcher either caff fully not had have knoLVledge Lhis stage facts in Matsushlta, in the 415 Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 13 of 19 Taklng U.S, at 587-88. ca.Il to Nurse Thrjft a r e a s o n a b . fe j u r y Loflin had this stage c tt: r)anra lznaul While fact as medical ro risk that shel more or in refuses 856 F.3d at delay a s t o a m o u' rt Servs Inc., at an medical OI in providing to no trealment by conduct risk disregards a she knowsJ brrt he for Ior the (inrernal 20Ll) can be forrnd to be medical- need by an rrearment, care alf," 169 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir. IJ of serlous treatment medical at summary drspute care, CLr. inmate's prov.Lding medical S rh,c61iyg JqVJ! J when he for an official to shown enough enough evidence that (1lth CCDC. At Loffin's provide medical 850 SimiJ,arly, in 1116, obtain the a genujre "An official need of to chan rnereLy negligent cJrsory ngqliqent. serious omitted) . unreasonable Health is Dang, 780 E.3d. to knew that survive knew of by more than mere negligence fails quotations Wilcher at to is Pugh and Pl aintiIfs, Viilr:herts DefendanL WiLcher disregarded an inmate inmaLe." Lhere to have cond-ition, have faifed LhaL was more Ehan merely serious while llef ondanr that Defendant Plaintlffs need, show rhat agr€es Court whether I Dr. Wifcher Plaintitfs ro medi Defendant condition r e n A r r J sJ ; in Loflin's the to that medicaL w.tn most favorabfe l-ight infer could la:ql nf the conversaLion Ehe proceedings. in :- aAaa in serious a boch the Valderrama, rhar Ancata 1985) v, is "so Prison Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 14 of 19 PLaintiffs Defendant base their cfaim failure "Wilcher's of take to address Matthew Loflin's serlous Pfaintiffs aIIege Defendant sufficient evidence medicaf th.is concl,usion not ignore Loflin extent of any dicl and assertion showing explanation r',^har,q I^1 to L\reae or :.tay5t More to rel eased was grossly Moreover, efforts falled evj dence to (1d. ) how the ind i cat i ng record he Loflin's The after that with Dl:int- the his to support take have not Defendant if f c contention J any made Wilcher nra'rii. I-.-,-.-3 rhat s.rnerir]rq the compleLel y cannor failed that into developed in not record dld Afthough fu1ly Plaintiffs na.rrinsnr. consult 12.) did is contradicts shows 5 at actions Lo supporL rL nv nO Defendant -,Of fV lcaL j - lin negligenr. P Ja i n t i f f s take. to to 11.) afone directly are not importantly, have showinq titaL Defendanc Wilcher he inaction Defendant Wilcher r - r r r - r q q l- \ 7 9---- facLs The unsuccessfuJ , that explain (Doc, 55 at Defendant Wilcher that (Doc. 52, Attach. condj tion. whatsoever. r:ke evidence whatsoever indifference record on Defendanc Wi-[cher rnade "inquires" Pugh, Lof-Lin's action Wifcher's the conditi-on. were indifference medicaL need." 1 Defendant Wilcher's Pfaintiffs' action However, released. record any defiberate and contains idiLh Dr. disregard his LofIin's having rhe of (Id. ) need. speaking that defiberate fa-iled was grossly Plaintiffs Lhar to have Defendant 74 provide any negligenc faifed Wifche r to evidence lor acrions idenitfy acleo Lo any de I ay Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 15 of 19 T,nf I in'q t16:imanl- nra\/anf physj cian, offsj te CCDC intirmary after (Doc. Wifcher. 55 Defendant Wlfcher's necessary or sooner. Lofljn then to an ol-f site shown that Defendant .16l-er, l-h:l- r]aai DefendanL Wj lcher decide when to physician. patient care. B9'1 (11th Cir. (3d Cir. experLs justified to DefendanL not shown how refeased receive an ofisice was even medical 1 , 6 - 1 1. ) 5 at physician. !!iLcher physiclan to Dr. (Id. took admit ar the wiLh have Loflin authority PLaintiffs acted transfer of have negligentl Loflin medical Wil.liams 2006); 2004) ("If a in remained in Pugh had che auchorjLy Dr. Non-medical prison judgment Loflin way. any care ro send who would to the Pugh evenrually did 7.) Loflin Plaintiffs any action to nave prevent or <i nn addition, In 236 shows that in care conversation have to independent the send Lotlin Lhe approval n is Plaintiffs Yet, (Doc. 52. Attach. hospj raI. not 11. ) an h:.,inn that Pugh's an emergency room or have jn wouLd have aLlowed Loll in The record to Frnm fact the Dr. at him inLerfered or rnerely po-int to Pfaintiffs ar"l v. to y officials relyjng j n i-imestone Cty,, Spruill a prifsoner the is v. on Dr. with that Pugh to an offsite ro defer ciltis, official is the Lo proper derermining 198 Fed. App,x. under prisoner 15 estabfish are entiLled professionals see afso Lhat by to an appointment non-medicaL prison believing faifed 893, 312 8.3d, 2IB, care wj ll of medlcaf general Iy in capable hands, be Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 16 of 19 Inmate _ raqn/1nqi]-.r heaLth il-\/ F/1- l- show that F'rrL. q . \.:rinrrq Defendant - rFa r nan- of Because Plaintiffs Defendant safeLy Wilcher's Wilcher show that medical treatment. a As a result. Wifcher's In 42 S to It pursuant this to their Regardfess, both bring to the any evidence of Loffin, s medicaf constitutional riqhr ro Defendant WiLcher is entitled to s _Lmmunity. Accordjngly/ Surnmarv Judqment is Defendant GRANTED. their l-983, deliberate Pfaintiffs also based on Loffin's indifference seek wrongful clain under a state c . l aj . m u n d e r 4 2 U . S . C . claims wrongful law recovery cause S 1993. clai_m under 42 against (Doc. gZ at pLaj-ntiffs if of U.S.C. that S wish action (Doc. 92 at must fai_l . ?o the extent death cl-aim unoer death. 1s unc.Lear from the Amended Complaint purslie on plaintiffs or LofIin, quaLified to Defendant Wifcher 23.) relying in Death Cf aim addition, U. S.C. nrr.r.iYJdrur, inactions, actions violated MoLion for C . l 4 h o n g fu f his provide to indifference cannot of :mnnn have faifed unreasonably failed either protecrlons I i fo dividing i n. LOfl needs, the acted defiberate he i nm^l-a .\€ by and so on.") . Ptaintiffs have through promoted is aqnor-tq physicians, administrators, to and or 23.) pfaintiffs 1983, this n Because there is no evidence that Defendant Wilcher violateo Lof-lin' s constitutional rigrhf , the Court does not need to declde whether the right was cfeaXly estabfished at the time of the alLeged violation. 15 Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 17 of 19 clajm because this fails the the extent ' henrrr ca. 153/ 744, iclenf ifv !r !a\ 4nu"' iJ<t !i ur -r-,^+ LrrqL o - (Doc. and rI. 52 aL L4; cfaim is under sr.i f nre.nisccl 55 at Doc. nFr-iae LaW 1983 both Ul l . S . C . S Judgment as Const. the ,a^-aad ShOUId be state law Defendant fai1, the to 264 with l'a\74 Because the 15.) or have fajled acted Sta1:e a acting Ga. Plainciffs On ]aw. Richardson, (quoLing l -v.L. r-r L p rz law malice "actuaf v. (L994) ri rnr a Y lr y f state Ceorgia Defendant Wilcher Accnrrl 42 with case/ a an official Glfbert this that S u r n mray for wrongful death C O N S E N TM O T I O NT O D ] S M ] S S l\/ tLe Dismiss Defendants tr,lilcher in his Pursuant to Federal m:rr rhLo n:r-ies Virginia Of f icial . - ii c m i <qor] h L .ryr permitLed :u l' l to r havc Capacity Civif n , r r e ,J ru run- ,l rJr! -.rii. With an acLion againsL L1 MOrion Prejudice. Procedure r- ,v , - \ \ \ ur L ConsenL a Chacnam County, aPL,corEu pulLru- dismiss f i -Led O'Neil1, Rufe of "'ql < J -i: j ' n . u- J- z l immunicy GRANTED. Addi rr^na- rat-inn In i r-c ^^ej- L M o Li o n Wil-cher's c]alm m:l .w.!-v^r '-9-! fu,r. 1 deni-ed. claim nf acted 483 476, IX(d) ). anv evidence larral d S.E.2d 452 Under show thaL to cause iniurv." to para. 1, S II, arL. fo intent actual fai Ls. function discretionary their under brought a I so mnsf nrov'.de evjdence within with is claim cla im the ! r r ! v ! J , nl:rr''ff qualified by above, as discussed To barred is claim c l L- fi D and John (Doc. 87. ) 41(a) (1) (A) (ii), n,,l:lPu LO inr nF , riiemr--^- yu--fL5 some defendants an d withouc c Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 18 of 19 d i smissing 376 r.3d molion is G R A N T E D' . A s O'NeiJi, ^aF]^i^t act i on. KIay v. 1-106 (11th Cir. 1092, VLrginia III. enL ire rhe ^-^-^i eq},ourLr -.e 2004). requesLed Chatham Unj ted Accordingly, the by County Heal thgroup, and John parties' the parties, Inc. . Defendants Wilcner in DISMISSED VIITH PRE,fUD ICE from thls nis actlon.' F S T I P U L A T I O NO F D I S M I S S A L ] In addj tion, Dismissal Federal the of Corizon, Rule of Civif parries naue filed (Doc. LLC. 65. ) a Joinc As Procedure 4l-(a) (1) (A) (ii) pursuant Lo be dismissed by aII parcies t-o "a stipulatjon who have appeared." oI Sripularion discussed affows above, an action dismissal Because Lhe parties o1 signed have af -L ' As a result, Defendant O'Neilf's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58) and Defendants Chatham County and John Wifcher, s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61) are DfSMISSED AS MOOT. " Certain disagree on whether to aLfow a pfaintiff courts to dismrss claims aga insr a defendanr in cheir off_cia1 capacicy whi le reraining claims againsc the same defendanL in Lnelr rndividuaf capacity. Compare Smith v. City of MobiIe, No. 1600478-N, 2011 wL 39II52, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 21, 2071) (holding that a plaintiff not could vofuntarily dismiss only claims against a defendant 1n their officiaf capacity) with Bynum v. Cty. of Kauai, No. 12-00523 JMS/RLP, 20!4 WL lif f re , ai-lr_lgl' Haw. Feb. 24, 2014)(allowing a plaintiff to voluntarj iy dismiss .aga) t)rL ^ d ^')|]hl- v j L(rur_L nffi.i:l i- f heir individrr:l n:narirrr whjle still licigacing cfaims against Lhe same individual in Lheir offjciaf capacity) . ln this case, Plaintifts only seek Lo voluntarily dismiss claims against Defendant WiLcher in nrs official capacicy. However. because this Courc has dismissed all cl aims agai nst- DeIendanL Wifcher his i ndividua L capaciLy. in this Court does not have to address whether it is proper to dismi ss only Lhose cfa i ms against DefendanL Wi lcher i n his official copaciLy. RaLher, rhe only remain ing claims aqainst Defendant l,{_Iche-r are rhose ln his o{ f icia I capac ity. Therefore, che stipulation wouLd eIfective-Ly dismiss aI] remaining claims aga insr Defendant l.di-Icher. 18 Case 4:16-cv-00060-WTM-GRS Document 97 Filed 09/28/17 Page 19 of 19 i^raa/l t-. ef inrr ^r Cortzon, ir-\n LLC DISMISSED ]S WITH action. PRE,TUDICEfrom this CONCLUSION tr^. Al St. -ha c.\r^^..\ ino parties' PART and is Prejudice for Chatham CounLy and (Doc. 51) JcLr r l ,i \n . r,f to:--t iu^: rn are -F G R i N i I T E D .{ D o c . .'^n]- i.\n :r-r-nrrli in nnl 87. ) MooT. of 52.) As Court result, a (Doc. O'Neill' Defendant and Defendants Surt-nary Judgment parties' the LLC is 68) for The CapaciLy Wrt.h Official Further, ^^-r-^* The Cferk (Doc. PART. Motion John Wilcher's aicr:^^^r 65.) his Summary Judgment DISMISSED As Defenoants Defendants Virginia r'o Dismiss GRjANTED. (Doc. LhaL Surnmarv Judqment is for Motion a n d J o h n W i - L c h er Motion O'Neiff's finds DISMISSED AS MOOT IN ConsenL Motion ChaLham County. Co':rt h iq and Wilcher/ s Lawrence GRANTED IN rcaqnns- from this action D I R E C T E Dt o Joint iS amend the r.' ^-4 S O O R D T R E DL h i s , 1 . / ' day of September 2011. I^1TT.T.T AM T MnnPtr .TP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S O U T H E R ND ] S T R I C T O F G E O R G ] A 19
]]>
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.
