DAVIS v. MAXA et al, No. 1:2021cv00055 - Document 41 (W.D. Pa. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re ECF No. 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NP LESLIE, NP Sutherland, DR. MAXA, AND WELLPATH MEDICAL PROVIDER. The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. A separate order will follow. Signed by Chief United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on February 22, 2023. (rlh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DAVIS v. MAXA et al Doc. 41 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIE DIVISION FAHEEM DAVIS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff vs. DR. MAXA, N P LESLIE, NP SUTHERLAN D, WELLPATH MEDICAL PROVIDER, Defendants 1:21-CV-00055-RAL RICHARD A. LANZILLO Chief United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY WDGMENT IN RE: ECF NO. 36 MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is pending before the Court. ECF No. 36. For the reasons explained below, the motion will be GRANTED. 1 I. Introduction and Procedural History PlaintiffFaheem Davis ("Davis"), an inmate currently incarcerated at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution ("SCI") at Frackville and formerly incarcerated at SCI-Forest, brought this prose civil rights action against medical provider Wellpath and three Wellpath medical staffmembers, Dr. Maxa, Nurse Practitioner ("NP") Leslie, and NP Sutherland. 2 ECF No. 5. The complaint alleges that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Davis's serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the The parties have consented to thejurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, including the entry offmaljudgment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636. See ECF Nos. 6, 18. 1 The Court hasjurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Davis's state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1337. 2 l Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 9 Constitution.3 The Court later stayed this case pending Davis's receipt of certain medical test results that the parties agreed were potentially relevant to his claims. The Court held two more status conferences before lifting the stay on June 8, 2022. See ECF Nos. 30, 32, 33. Defendants filed their pending motion for summary judgment on July 29, 2022. ECF No. 36. In accordance with Local Rule 56(B), Defendants' motion was accompanied by a concise statement of material facts and a supporting brief. ECF Nos. 37, 38. Under the Court's Case Management Order (ECF No. 39) and as directed by LCvR 56(C), Davis was to file a responsive concise statement of material facts and brief in opposition to the motion by August 29, 2022. When Davis had failed to do so by September 27, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing him to explain his failure or, alternatively, file his brief and responsive concise statement on or before October 18, 2022. ECF No. 40. The Order to Show Cause further advised Davis that his failure to respond may result in the Court dismissing his case based on his failure to prosecute. Id. See also Reavis v. Aurandt, 2022 WL 3920955 at * 1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2022). To date, Davis has failed to respond to the Court's Show Cause Order or to otherwise indicate that he wishes to proceed with this action. 4 II. Statement of Facts A. Davis's Complaint In his complaint, Davis essentially alleged that Defendants' failure to diagnose him with a serious medical condition related to his reports of bowel issues constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Davis alleged that he experienced severe abdominal pain The complaint was accompanied by the following exhibits: a July 21, 2020 Inmate Request to Staff Member, ECF No. 5-1, p. 2; Grievance No. 900251 and the Initial Review Response, id., pp. 3-5; Grievance No. 904440 and Rejection Form, id., pp. 6-7; Grievance No. 907637, id., p. 8; and Lab Reports dated April 27 and July 8, 2020. 3 4 Davis's last docket activity was the filing ofhis pretrial statement on July 8, 2022. As none ofthe Court's mailings to Davis's current address ofrecord have been returned as undeliverable, the Court presumes he has received them. 2 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 3 of 9 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 4 of 9 Sager, 2022 WL 565391, at *1-2 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 562936 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 24, 2022). In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants have produced a record that includes over four-hundred pages of Davis's medical records. Their concise statement of material facts recounts Davis's relevant medical history in painstaking detail. In summary, the record shows that medical personnel examined Davis on fifty occasions between January 28, 2020 and December 29, 2021, when Davis was transferred from SCI-Forest to SCI-Frackville. This includes thirty-eight examinations in 2020 alone. This number does not include a mental health evaluation and two dental appointments that also occurred before Davis was transferred to SCI-Frackville. During this same timeframe, Davis underwent numerous medical tests, including ultrasounds, blood tests, and x-rays, was prescribed various medications for his reported symptoms, and was evaluated by consulting medical personnel. Every medical condition complained of by Davis or identified by a medical provider was treated by medication, diet, or other therapies. Prison medical staff consistently reviewed test results and treatment decisions with Davis. On one occasion, SCI-Forest medical personnel also reviewed Davis's lab results with his mother. Davis's medical records memorialize that he was hostile with medical staff and non-compliant with his medication. A June 6, 2022 Mental Health Contact Note reported that "he said he may be a hypochondriac." ECF No. 37-1, p. 413. See also id., p. 162. Davis was also examined on numerous occasions after his transfer to SCI-Frackville. Because of his continuing medical complaints, several additional diagnostic tests were ordered and performed, including an ultrasound, bone marrow biopsy, flow cytometry, and a molecular study. Each test result was negative and disclosed no new medical concern. 4 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 5 of 9 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 6 of 9 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 7 of 9 Noel, 2018 WL 3521212, at *5 (M.D. Pa. June 28, 2018) (collecting cases). Such complaints fail as constitutional claims because "the exercise by a doctor of his professional judgment is never deliberate indifference." Gindraw v. Dendler, 967 F. Supp. 833, 836 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (citing Brown v. Borough of Chambersburg, 903 F.2d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 1990) ("[A]s long as a physician exercises professional judgment his behavior will not violate a prisoner's constitutional rights.")). "Therefore, where a dispute in essence entails nothing more than a disagreement between an inmate and doctors over alternate treatment plans, the inmate's complaint will fail as a constitutional claim under§ 1983." Tillery, 2018 WL 3521212, at *5 (citing Gause v. Diguglielmo, 339 Fed. Appx. 132 (3d Cir. 2009)). In this case, Davis has failed both to demonstrate that he has a serious medical need or that medical personnel acted with deliberate indifference to his medical concerns. Davis argues that his "health continued to ail without any proper diagnosis," but his medical records negate a plausible finding that any medical condition went undiagnosed or unaddressed. Id. Indeed, his allegation that he may have cancer is unsupported by the record. His medical records also negate a finding that his medical needs were serious. As Dr. Miceli, one of the SCI-Frackville medical providers who provided care to Davis, succinctly stated after he examined him on May 12, 2022, "Mr. Davis is fine." ECF No. 37-1, p. 427. Nothing in the record supports a contrary conclusion. Moreover, the numerous medical examinations, tests, and other diagnostic procedures performed on Davis while he was an inmate at SCI-Forest belie that any Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See e.g., Paya v. Stechschulte, 2022 WL 912588, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2022) (No deliberate indifference found where it was undisputed that "Plaintiff was seen, evaluated and treated on a regular basis and was prescribed medication as medically needed."); Gause v. Diguglielmo, 339 Fed. Appx. 132, 135 (3d Cir. 2009) (Deliberate 7 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 8 of 9 indifference standard unmet where "[Plaintiffs] medical records show that he was seen many times by the prison medical staff and received medicine, physical therapy, and even treatment outside of the prison," thus establishing that "[Plaintiff] received medical care."). Davis himself details some of these examinations and diagnostic procedures in his complaint, acknowledging that he was seen at least twice by NP Sutherland, who ordered diagnostic tests before concluding that Davis was constipated, and that he received medical attention from NP Leslie and Dr. Maxa, including the ultrasound ordered by Dr. Maxa, which generated negative results. In fact, according to Davis's medical records, Dr. Maxa examined him on at least three occasions, ordered diagnostic tests, reviewed the results of each of these tests, and prescribed treatment for a condition identified during Davis's examinations. Davis also concedes that NP Sutherland prescribed medication for his reported muscle tremors but that he stopped taking the medication because he did not like its side effects. In summary, the record demonstrate that Davis received extensive medical assessment, treatment, and follow-up care while incarcerated. Although he argues that "SCI Medical Staff has failed to treat [him] properly as he has requested," ECF No. 5, p. 3, such disagreement or dissatisfaction with medical professionals does not support an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. See v. Coleman, 2014 WL 7392400, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2014) (citing Jetter v. Beard, 130 Fed. Appx. 523, 526 (3d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 985) (it is well established that an inmate is not "entitled to a particular course of treatment or to have particular tests performed."); Gause, 339 Fed. Appx. 132; Tillery, 2018 WL 3521212, at *5 (collecting cases). 5 5 The failure of Davis to show that NP Sutherland, NP Leslie, and Dr. Maxa acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs preclude a Section 1983 claim against Wellpath, their employer, based on any policy, practice, or custom Davis alleges it maintained. See e.g., Stankowski v. Farley, 251 Fed. Appx. 743, 748 (3d Cir. 2007) (Because plaintiff could not allege that "the nurses' practice of not distributing bandages until the patient sees 8 Case 1:21-cv-00055-RAL Document 41 Filed 02/22/23 Page 9 of 9
]]>
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.
