Rogers v. Schilling, et al, No. 5:2017cv70073 - Document 98 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 1/16/19. (kld)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT 1 R(* 0KE,VA FILED Ix 'rl-ls UNITED STATESols-rluc'rc'ouR.r JA8 16 2018 y'oR 'rl-ls U STERN ols-rm c' r os w RslN lx u ,ux H ARRISO N BU RG D IW SIO N cussx BK EPUW C ERK SY RON D .R O GER S, Plaindffy Case N o.5:17-CV-70073 V. FREDEM CK SCH ILLIN G eta1., By: H on.M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. M EM O R AN D U M O PIN ION D efendantsD avid M acD onald,D .O .and TanyaLandtnlm ,H ealth Services AHministrator(collectivelyTfD' efendants'')ftledamodon forsummaryjudgmentpursuantto Rule 56 oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure on N ovem ber29,2018.ECF N o.83.The cout' theard argum enton themodon onlanuary3,2019.Forthereasonsstatedbelow,the courtGRANTSthemodonfotslpmmaryjudgment.M countsateDISM ISSED andthis caseisSTRICK EN from the acdvedocket. 1. PlnindffSyronD.Rogezsrflkogers'')wasaninmateattheAugustaCorrecdonal Centerr<ACC'')atthetimeoftheeventsgivingdsetothisclnim.ECF No.83-1,at98. Theseeventsoccurred mainlyinM arch andAplilof2015.J.daat115.Rogersremains Rogers v. Schilling, et al Doc. 98 incarcerated clzrrently.Ld. aDefendantDr.David MacDonald (<fDr.MacDonald'')isafamily physician who isBoard Cero ed in Fam ilyM edicine.ECF N o.83-2,at2.D efendantTanya LanA m (<fHSA Landrkmf) served astheHealth ServicesAdministratoratACC duringthe period giving rise to Rogets'sclnim s.ECF N o.83-3,at10. Dockets.Justia.com These cbim sarise from whatRogersallegeswasinadequate cateand retaliadon againstconsdtudonally ptotected speech.Rogersw as& stseen attheUniversity ofVitgitaia Hospitalr<UVA'')inanoff-siteclinicalappointmentfordissecdngcellu' litisinthescalpatea onlune12,2014.ECF No.83-5,at2.Hehad been receiving trea% entforthiscondiéon fotseveralyears.J.daOn Septem ber9,2014,Dr.DavidShonkaatUVA fizttherevaluated Rogersand noted constantdtainage/dischatgefrom thewoundarea.Ld.aat7.Rogerswasreevaluated on February 12,2015,w hen surgery and graftreconstrucdon were ftrstdiscussed. Lt. laat9.ThisprocedurewasperformedonM atch 6.LdaA fffoam bolster''wasattachedto thegraftsiteduting surgery to aid in short-term henling.ECF N o.83-6,at48.Following the procedure,Rogerszeturned to ACC wit.h adischargenotadon thatread,f% ewillschedule you afollow-up appointmentfoz3/12/15.W ewillremoveyoutbolsteratthattime.''ECF N o.83-5,at15.A M arch 11,2015 notadon in A CC'Sm edicalrecordsindicatesthatD r. M acD onald wasawareofthisappointm ent.ECF N o.83-4,at7. D r.Shonkaissued severalpost-operadve ordersregarding Rogers,inclucling thathe notliftanyweightexceeding 10 lbs.ECF N o.83-5,at16.A fterRogets'sretlarn to A CC following hissurgery,hewasdischatged ftom the m edical916t.133* back into general populadon.Thereissom edisagreem entasto when thishappened;Dt.M acD onald states thatthedischatgeoccutredonMarch9(ACC medicalzecordssupportthislwhileRogers clnim shewassentback to generalpopuladon assoon ashe retuzned to A CC,thesam e day ashisstugery.Com are ECF N o.83-7,at45 and ECF N o.83-4,at7w1:11ECF N o.83-1,at 27.Rogerswassim ated in a third-floorcelland had to ascend and descend stairsin orderto attend m ealsand m edicalappointm ents.ECF N o.83-1,at128-29. 2 Rogezs'sM arch 12,2015 appointm entw ascancelled by UVA .On M arch 12 at10:11 am ,Ellen D esper,anurseatUVA,noted in Rogets'sm eclicaltecord thatshetold a physician atACC thatRogers'spost-operadveappoin% entwith D t.Shonkawould need to berescheduled fffzom 3/24to 3/17::to removehisbolsterdtessing.ECF No.83-5,at19. N utse D esperindicated thattheACC physician w asawom an;Dr.D ianeLandauer,Dr. M acD onald'scolleague,wasthe only fem alephysician working atA CC.ECF N o.83-2,at2. D r.M acD onald review ed Rogers'sm edicalrecord and saw thatUV A had cancelled the M atch 12 appointm ent,asthenotadon fflkescheduled byUVA pending''had been added to thezecord.ECF N o.83-7,at33.D r.M acD onald also knew from Rogezs'sm edicalrecord thathewasscheduled tobeexaminedbyIV.Landauerthenextday,on Match 13.J1LT'here -. isno evidence thatD r.M acD onald saw RogersafterM atch 11,2015.Afterthatdate,Rogers wastreated by A CC staffphysician D r.Landauer. O n M arch 13,D t.Landauerexnm ined Rogersand noted slightturbid clrainage ftom histlligh graftsite.ECF N o.83-4,at9.O n M arch 19,Rogerswasevaluated again by D r. Landauer,who nodced m oze drainage from the scalp,butrecorded thatthegraftsitewas healingwell.LdaOnM arch 20,atelephonècallwasmadetoUVA describingtheincreasein dtainageandothersym ptom s.Ld.aat11.A nutseatUVA askedthatRogersbebroughtback and recorded thathe had been ano-show forhisM arch 17 post-operativeappoin% ent. ECF No.83-5,at21.RogerswasbroughttoUVA thatafteznoon.1daDr.Landauerlater noted thattheskin graftTrdidnottake''andneeded sutgicaldebridement.Li Tl' liswas performed onM atch 23.Ld.a 3 Rogetswasreturned to ACC on M atch 24 with severalpost-operadve ordezs, including(aglin)tlmtheshouldnotliftover10lbs.forapproximately4weeks.ECFNo.835,at16.Rogerswasseen severaltimesbydoctorsandnutsesbetween March 24andlune2. ECF N o.83-4,at13.Rogerswasdischarged from the m edicalinfitm ary on oraboutApril 28,2015 and retutned to generalpopulation,butw asreaclm itled to the m edicalinfit'm aty tht'ee dayslater.ECF N o.83-1,at153.O n April22,2015,Rogersftled an offenderrequest asserting severalcom plaintsagainstN tuse Carter,inclucling thatshehad ffassaulted''lnim . ECF N o.83-3,at201.H SA Landm m spokepersonally with Rogersregatding som eofthese com plaintsand responded in wridng to the offenderrequeston April24.ECF N o.83-3,at 200-201.OnJune2,RogerswasevaluatedbyDr.ShonkaatLJVA,who notedthathewas f'doing wellwith no evidenceofongoing itlftcéon and epitheliazadon ofthe entitearea. Com pletelyhealed atthispoint.''ECF N o.83-5,at46. Rogersfiled llisoriginalcom plaintagainstD efendantsD r.D avid M acD onald and H ealth ServicesAdm inistratorTanya Landnzm on February27,20179theam ended com plzntwasflled on O ctober18,2017.E CF N o.19ECF N o.45.Rogersbzoughtseven clnim sagainstD efendants,two ofwhich havebeen voluntarily dismissed.O fthehve remairling cllims,threehavebeen broughtpursuantto 42U.S.C.j 1983.Theremaining two, CountsVIand VII,allegeRogersisentzed to putliéve dam agesand attom eys'fees;the successofthese çountsthusdependson the substandve allegadonsofCounts1,IV,and V . ECF N o.45. CountIisan Eighth A m endm entcbim ofdeliberateindifference to a seriousm edical need.ltallegesthreebasesofdeliberateindifference:(1)thatDr.MacDonald ffviolated 4 Plaindff'srightto be free from deliberateindifferenceto hisknown seriousm edicalneed for thepost-opetadve appoin% entscheduled forM arch 12,2015wherethebolster sewn into l' lisheadwastoberemovedi''(2)that<<Dr.MacDonaldfuttherviolatedthisrkhtwhenhe refused to follow the surgeon'sinstrucdonsthatrestticted Plainéfpsload belring acdvity by allowing Plaindffto be housed in generalpopuladon on the thitd floor- knowing thatM r. Rogerswould beforced to carryllisown bodyweight(wllich iswaymorethan 10pounds) upthteeflightsofstaitstorestinllisroom,orgotothedininghallforeachmeali''and (3) thatf<D t.M acD onald ftzrtherviolated Plaindff'srightw hen heintentionally tefused to house Plaindffin themedicalunit/inflrmaryuntillaiswoundsfullyhealed,insteadldckingPlaindff outoftheinfitvnary on two occasions.''ECF N o.45,at32-33.CountIV allegesthatRogers w asdischarged ftom them edicalinfirm ary on April28,2015 and tetarned to general populadon in zetaliadon againsthisexercise ofhisFirstAm endm enttightsto ftle arlm inisttadve grievances.Id.at37.Finally,CountV also allegesaFitstAm endm entcloim of retaliadon undetatheory ofsupervisoryliability- lkogersclnim sthatl' lisw oundswete scm bbed untiltheybled by N urse Carterand thatD r.M acD onald and HSA Landtnlm failed to intervene.Id.at38. II. PuzsuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure56(a),thecourtmustffgrantsummary judgmentifthemovantshowsthatthereisnogenlxinedisputeasto anymaterialfactand themovantisentitledtojudgmentasamattezoflam ''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);seeCelotex Co .v.Catett,477U.S.317,322(1986)9G1nnv.EDO Co .,710F.3d209,213 (4thCir. 2013).W hen maldngtllisdeterm inadon,thecouttshould considerffthepleaHings, 5 deposidons,answetstointertogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwith...gany) affidavits''flled by the pntties.Celotex,477 U.S.at322.W hethera factism aterialdepends on therelevantsubstantivelaw.Anderson v.Libeo Lobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986). ffo nly disputesovetfactsthatmightaffectthe outcom eoftheslzitunderthe govetning 1aw willpzoperlyptecludetheentryofslpmmat'yjudgment.Facmaldisputesthatareirzelevantor unnecessarywillnotbecounted.''Id.(citadon omitted).Themovingpartybearstheinidal burden ofdem onstradng the absence ofagenuine issueofm aterialfact.See Celotex,477 U.S.at323.lfthatbuzden hasbeen m et,the non-m oving party mustthen com e forward and establishthespecificmatetialfactsindisputetosurviveslxmmaryjudgment.MatsusllitaElec. lndus.Co.v.Zetlith RadioComs,475U.S.574,586-87 (1986). In detetmining whetheragenlzineissue ofm aterialfactexists,the couttviewsthe factsand draw sal1reasonableinferencesin the lightm ostfavorable to thenon-m oving party.. 1..1 .. y. % ,710F.3dat213(ciéngBondsv.Leavitt,629F.3d369,380(4thCir.2011)). Indeed,Tfliltisanfaxiom thatint''lingonamotion forsummaryjudgment,theevidenceof thenonmovantistobebelieved,andalljusdfiableinfetencesaretobedrawninlnisfavor.''' McAirlaids Inc.v.Iomberl-clarkCo .No.13-2044,2014WL 2871492,at*1(4thCir. June25,2014)(internalalteradonornitted)(citingTolanv.Cotton,134S.Ct.1861,1863 ' (2014)@ercurinml).M oreover,ffgclreclibilitydete= inadons,theweigllingoftheevidence, and thedrawingoflegidmateinferencesfrom thefactsarejuryf' uncdons,notthoseofa judge....''Anderson,477U.S.at255.However,thenon-movingpartyffmustsetforth spçcifk factsthatgo bçyond the Tm eze existence ofascintillaofevidence.''?G 1nn,710 F.3d at213 (quodngAnderson,477U.S.at252).Instead,thenon-movingpartymustshow that 6 ffthezeissufhcientevidencefavodngthenonmovingpartyforajurytoretuznaverdictfor tlzatpartp''Res.BanksharesCo .v.St.PaulMerc Ins.Co.,407F.3d631,635(4thCir. 2005)(quodngAnderson,477U.S.at249).fflnotherwords,togtantsummaryjudgmentthe gcjouttmustdetetminethatnoreasonablejurycouldftndforthenonmovingpartyonthe evidencebeforeit.''Mossv.ParksCo .,985F.2d736,738(4thCir.1993)(cie gPerini Co .v.PetiniConst.lnc.,915F.2d121,124(4thCir.1990)). 111. CountIallegesavioladon oftheEighthAmenclment,vindicated thtough aj1983 chim.Underj1983,Rogersmustshow (asathresholdmatter)thateachDefendantwas pezsonallyinvolvedintheallegedviolation.Ashcroftv.I bal,556U.S.662,676(2009)9 Vinned ev.Gibbs,550F.2d926,928(4thCit.1977)rfAlthoughj1983mustbeTzead againstthebackgtound oftortliability thatm akesam an responsibleforthenatural consequencesoflnisacdons,'(citaéonomittedj,qliabilitywillonlyliewhereitisafgt-madvely shown thatthe ofhcialcharged acted personallyitzthe deprivadon oftheplaindffs'rights. Thedocttineofres ondeatsu eriorhasno applicadon underthissecdon.'). To prove an Eighth Am endm entvioladon,Rogersm ustshow thathe suffered a suffciently seriousdeprivadon and tlzatD efendantsacted wit. h ffdeliberateindifference''to llishealthorsafety.Farmerv.Brennan,511U.S.825,834(1994)(citad.onsomitted).Inmates mustTfshow ln0th (1)aseriousdeprivadon ofabasichuman need;and (2)deliberate indifferenceto prison condidonson thepartofprison offkials.''Stricklerv.W aters,989 F.2d1375,1379(4thCir.1993).Delibezateindifferencereqllitesç<ahigherdegreeof disregard than m erenegligence.'?Fnt-m er,511 U.S.at837.A prison ofûcialffm ustboth be aw aze ofthe factsfrom which theinfezence could bedrawn thatasubstandalrisk ofhnt'm exists,and he m ustdraw thatinferencer'?Bricev.Vir ' 'aBeach CorrecdonalCenter,58 F.3d101,105(4thCir.1995). A. RogersallegesunderCountIthatD r.M acD onald violated hisrightsby failing to ensure thatthesurgicalfoam bolsterwasrem oved in adm ely m anner.Specifkally,when UVA called to reschedule theM arch 12 appointm entto M arch 17,D t.M acD onald failed to enskue thatRogersm adeitto thatappoin% ent.Instead,Rogersw asseen by D r.Landauer on M arch 13 and 19 andw astaken to IJVA on M atch 20.Rogersassettsthatthisdelay consdtutesdeliberate indiffezenceon Dr.M acD onald'spartbecausehe knew thatinfecdon could resultfrom a failureto rem ove the foam bolsterin atim ely m anner.ECF N o.83-7,at 27.RogersnotesthatD t.M acD onald review ed and signed Rogers'spost-opezative discharge instrucdons,and thusknew thatthe foam bolsterwasto be rem oved within afew daysof surgery.RogersassettsthatDr.M acD onald knew the follow-up appointm entw asbeing zescheduled butfailed to take stepsto ensuretheappoin% entw askeptand the bolster rem oved so asto avoid infection.In essence,thisisacase aboutanzissed appoin% ent,and Rogersclqim sthatD r.M acD onald w asdeliberately indifferentby failing to m ake slzrethe follow-up appoin% entatUVA wasm ade and kept. D efendantsrespond thatDr.M acD onald showed no delibetate indifferencebecause (1)hqdidnotdelayorinterfetew1t.11Rogers'saccesstooutsidecate;(2)hehadno constimdonaldutyto rescheduleRogers'sfollow-up appointment;and (3)Dr.MacDonald properly treated Rogers'swoundsatACC.D r.M acD onald exnm ined Rogerson M arch 11 8 and noted no signsofinfecdon.D r.M acD onald w asaw ate thattheM arch 12 follow-up appoin% entatUVA w asbeing rescheduled,and thatRogerswould be seen by laiscolleague Dz.LandaueronMarch 13.Defendantsassertthatnoreasonablejurycouldfindfzom these factsthatD z.M acD onald dem onstrated deliberateindifference to Rogers'sm edicalneeds. Thecout'tagtets. A saO eshold m atter,Rogersfailsto show any personalinvolvem entby D r. M acD onald in the scheduling,orfailure to schedule,Rogers'sfollow-up appointm ent. Becausej1983doesnotpe= ittes ondeatsu etiotclqims,Rogetsmustptesentenough evidenceto show thatD r.M acD onald waspersonaEy itw olved in the scheduling offollowup appoin% entsand in ensuting thatpadentsweretaken to theitappoin% ents.D r. M acD onald tesdfied thathewasnotpersonallyitw olved in setl ing otzeschedllling Rogers's M atch 12,2015 appoin% ent.ECF N o.83-7,at22.In H SA Landm m 'sdeposidon,she idendfied Faith Sim m onsasA CC'Sschedulerand saysthat,w hen an outside appointm ent qeedsto bescheduled,thedoctozsendsareferralfot'm to the scheduler,who then takescare ofthe entitescheduling process.ECF N o.92-3,at15.H SA Landtum also teséfed thatpostopezadve appoin% entdatesare usually Trsentback''from the outsidehospitalto A CC, m eaning thatdoctorsatACC arenotinvolved in tlzeitschedl:ling even to theextentof passing along areferralfot'm .ECF N o.83-3,at203. W hilepetsonaldirecdon oractazalknowledge and acquiescencecan consétazte personalinvolvem ent,no factsindicate thatD t.M acD onald had acm alknowledge ofany failureinscheduling.SeeRodev.Dellatcirete,845F.2d1. 195,1207(3rdCir.1988) rTersonalinvolvementcan beshown thtough allegadonsofpersonalditecdon orofacmal 9 knowledge and acquiescence.Allegadonsofparticipadon or actualknowledgeand acqtziescence,however,mustbemadewithappropzatepatdculadtp').Rogets'sfollow-up appoin% entto have hisbolstetzem oved w asoriginally setforM atch 12,2015,butUVA had to teschedule.W hileD r.M acD onald wasaware therescheduling oftheappoin% ent waspending,llisexam inadon ofRogezsrevealed no sym ptom sinclicadng any com plicaéons wit.h Rogers'sgzaftsite.D r.M acD onald also knew thatRogersw asscheduled to seehis colleague,Dr.Landauer,on M arch 13.Rogersm issed theM arch 17 appointm ent,butthere isno evidence thatD r.M acD onald lcnew this,asitisundisputed thatRogetswasbeing treated byD r.Landauerduting thispedod.In fact,D r.M acD onald wasnotinform ed ofany ptoblem with Rogers'sbolsterora missed appoinM entuntilafterthe second stugerywas com pleted on M arch 23. Given Dr.M acD onald'slack ofpersonalitw olvem ent,thefeisinsufhcientevidence from which areasonable factM dercould Snd deliberateindifference.The couzttakes guidancefrom Perre v.Donahue,703F.Supp.2d839,847(N.D.Ind.2010),inwllicha ptisonezallegedaviolation ofhisEighth Amendmentdghtsunderj1983againstthehealth servicesadm inistratorforfffsiling to facilitate the schedlnling and com pledon ofalivet biopsp''Thecourtfound thattheH SA ffwasnotinvolved in the processofschedlzling offendersforoutsidetrea% entorpzocedures.''ldz.at846.Theprocessdescribed for scheduling such appoin% entsisvery sim ila. rto the processatACC- + em edicalsectetary orschedlxling assistantzeceived aconsultadon requestfrom thetreating physician,wllich wasfaxed to tlaecorpotate ofhce ofthePrison H ealth Servicesforapproval.1d.Atthat pointthemedicalsecretaryschedtzledtheappoin% ent.Ld.aTheHSA wasneverpetsonally 10 involved.J. i Thecourtruled that,even iffactsexistedto suggesttheHSA personally pardcipated in the prisoner'sm edicalcare,deliberateindifference to a sedousm edicalneed wasalaighstandardthatcouldnotbemet.Li at847.Thecourtgtantedslammalyjudgment and dismissedthej1983clnim arinsttheHSA.Id.at862. W hileRogersisno longeralleging CountIaginstHSA Lancltnxm ,PerzeyZ usttates the sortofpersonalinvolvem entnecessary to consdtutedeliberateindifferenceunderthe Eighth Am endm ent.See703 F.Supp.2d at846.AtACC,a doctor'sonlyitw olvem entin scheduling outsideappoin% entswaspassing along areferralfot'm to theschedtller.A fter thispoint,doctotshad no rolein scheduling any furtheroutside appoin% ents- allfollowup appoin% entsorigm ' ated ftom the outsideclinic.Dr.M acD onald wasn'tanym ore involved in scheduling Rogers'spost-operadve appoin% entthan H SA Lancltnlm . Fnfvnerzequitesthata defendantin aclnim ofdeliberate indifferencebe awareofall factsindicadngariskofseriousinjuty,dtaw theinferenceofathteattotheplaintiff,and then ignore thiszisk.511 U .S.at837.N othingin therecord showsthatD r.M acD onald appreciatedasignihcantriskofseriousinjuryandconsciouslydistegardedit.Dr.MacDonald saw Rogerson M arch 11and noted no sign ofinfection.A lthough he did notknow precisely when the foam bolsterwould berem oved atUVA,heknew Rogersw ould be seen by D r. Landauerin two days,on M arch 13.Given tlnis,no reasonable factfindercould find thatD r. M acD onald wasdeliberately indifferentto Rogers'sneed to havellisfoam bolsterrem oved. B. RogersnextallegesthatD r.M acD onald violated llisEighth Am endm entrightsby allowing him to ascend staitsto accesslliscellin generalpopuladon.Rogersazegesthatthis 11 wasinclearvioladon ofhispost-operadveordersstatingheshouldnotcarryanyobjectover 10 lbs.Rogersarguesthatbecause hisown bodyweightexceeds 10 lbs.,reqlliting lnim to ascend and descend stairsforced him to carly thatweightand violated the post-operadve ordersissued to aid hisrecovery.D efendantsargue thatthe onlyreasonableintem retation of UVA 'Spost-operadve orderprevenéng Rogetsfrom lifdng m ore than 10 lbs.isthatRogets wasnotallowedtocarryforeignobjectsweighingmotethan 10lbs.,whichwouldnot includebodyw eight. Again,Fntvnerrequiresadefendantbesubjecdvelyawateofadsktotheplaindffand then disregard thisrisk.511 U .S.at837.Leaving asidewhetherclim bing stairsposed a signihcantrisk to Rogers'srecovery,thereisno evidence in therecord thatD r.M acD onald wasawareofany such risk.Indeed,D r.M acD onald tesdhed in hisdeposiéon thathe believedhewasobeyingDr.Shonlïa'sdischargeorderswhenhedischargedRogersbackto hiscellin generalpopuladon.ECF N o.83-7,at46-47.D t.M acD onald intem reted the discharge ordersstaéng Rogersm ustnotliftm orethan 10 lbs.asteferring to foreign objects,tatherthanhisownbodyweight.lJ.z Nothingintherecordindicatesthatthiswas pretense.A sD r.M acD onald w asnotawareofanyrisk to Rogers,Rogetscannotm ake a clsim ofdeliberateindifference.SeeFntmer,511U.S.at837(stadngthat,toholdaprison ofhcialliableunderthe Eighth Am endm ent,the ofhcialm ustbe130th aw are offactsfrom w llich theinference could be drawn thata substandalrisk ofserioushlt'm exists,and m ust dtaw theinfetence). 1Thisseem stobethelogicalintem retadon,asotherwise,Rogersw ouldbepetmittedno acdvityandwouldberestricted tobed rest- som etbing thatDr.Shonkapzesllmablywould havestated explicitly. 12 Moteovez,theFourthCircuithasheldthatajaildoctorcandisagreewithanoutside specialist'sdiagnosisand tzear entplan foran inm ate withoutlzisorhezacdonsconsdtuting deliberateindifference.Inlacksonv.Lightsey,775F.3d170,178-79(4thCit.2014),an inmateallegeddeliberateindifferencetoaseriousmedicalcondidonwhenajaildoctor diagnosedhim withheartatrhythmia,despitetheinmate'sproducdon (oroffertoproduce) m edicalrecordsshowing a cardiologisthad previously cliagnosed and treated him fozam ore setiouscondidon.TheFourth Citcuitruled thateven ifthedoctor'sdiagnosiswasm istaken, itwasessentially a clisagreem entbetween an inm ateand aphysician ovetpropezm edical cate.J-l. LFtzrther,thedoctot'serroneousdiagnosisandtrea% entcould tepresentadeviadon from theaccepted standard ofcate and stillnotconsdm tedeliberateindifference.Id.at179. D r.M acD onald'sacdonsdo noteven approach thelevelofdeviadon shown by the defendantinlackson.See775F.3dat178.Indeed,Rogers'sexpertDr.Rupeconcededthat llisacéonsdo notconstitutea depattate from the standard ofcate.2ECF N o.83-6,at83.A s such,Rogershasshown no evidence thatD r.M acD onald'sacdon in allowing Rogersascend stairsconsdtutesdeliberateindifference to a seriousm eicaldsk. C. Finally,RogerscontendsthatD r.M acD onald showed deliberateindifference to Rogers'sm edicalneedswhen he dischatged him fzom them edicalinfum ary afterlaisinidal stugeryatUVA (whetherthiswasM arch 6orM arch 9)and on April28,amonth afterlzis second surgery.Thisallegaéoniscloselyrelated to theallegadon above(asitwasthe 2WhenaskedifDt.MacDonaldcommittedatzyspecocactsofnegligencebesideshisfffaillztetoassurethat( Rogers's) outside appointment...occurred,''D r.Rupe answered,<% 0.':ECF N o.83-6,at83. 13 dischargethatnecessitatedRogers'suseofstairs)and failsforthesamereason.Apartfrom fliling to show deliberate indifference,Rogershasshown no hst'm asaresultofbeing discharged ftom the infil-mary.Rogets'sown expertacknowledgesthathispresencein generalpopuladon and useofthe stairshad no im pacton hisrecoverp3ECF N o.83-6,at 79.In the Eight.h Am endm entcontext,only TTextzem edeprivadons''suffice in acondidons- of-confmementclsim.Atnoldv.S.C.De 'tofCorr.,843F.Supp.110,113 O .S.C.1994). SummaryjudgmentasitpertainstoCountlisthereforeGRANTED.CountIis D ISM ISSED . IV. CountIV isaretaliadon clnim undertheFitstAmendmentaagainbroughtviaj1983. TheFirstAm endm entincludestherightto befree from tetaliadon by apublic officialfor theexerciseoffreespeech.SeeACLU v.W icomicoCountp Md.,999F.2d780,785(4th Cir.1993)rflketaliadon,thoughitisnotexpresslyteferredtoitltheConsdtution,is nonethelessacdonable becauseretanatory acdonsm ay tend to claillindividuals'exercise of consdtudonalrights.').However,astheFoutth Circuithasexplained,noteveryresponseto an individual'sexercise ofhisFitstAm enclm entzightto ftee speech isacdonable retaliadon. SeeDiMe liov.Hnines,45F.3d790,806(4thCir.1995)rW oteveryrestdcéonissufûcient to clnillthe exercise ofFirstAm enclm entrights,notiseveryrestdction acdonable,even if retaliatorp7).Rather,to provethistetaliadon clnim,Rogersmustdemonstratethatthe D efendants'acdonsim properlylim ited ltisrightto ftlegdevances.SeeW icom ico County, 3D r.Rupewasasked ifshe feltthatRogers'ssecond surgery wasaffected by lliswallring up and down stairsatcertain pointsafterhis& stsurgery,and she answeredy<<1do notfeelitwas.N o.''ECF N o.83-6,at79. 14 999F.2dat785rflnordertostatearetaliadonclnim,gplainéffsqarereqlliredto show that (defendant's)acéonsadvetselyimpacted theseFirstAmendmentrights.'). Underthesegeneralpzinciples,couttsfollow athree-parttest.fT irst,theplaindff m ustdem onsttate thatlzisorherspeech wasprotected.''Suatez Co .Indus.v.M cGraw, 202F.3d676,685-86(4thCit.2000)(cidngHuan v.Boazd' ofGovernots,902F.2d1134, 1140(4thCir.1990)).tfsecond,thedefendanttookanacéonthatadverselyaffectedthat protectedactivitp''Bookerv.S.C.De t'sofCorr.,855F.3d533,537(4thCir.2017). fT hird,theplnindffm ustdem onstrate thatacausalzelationsllip existsbetween itsspeech andthedefendant'sretaliatoryaction.';SuatezCo .Indus.,202F.3dat686(cidngHuan , 902 F.2d at1140).Notably,theFotuth Circuithasheld thatffltjhecausadon reql'itementis rigorous;itisnotenough thatthe pzotected expression played atole orwasam odvadng factorin theretaliaéon;cloim antmustshow thatfbutfot'theptotected expression thegstate actor)would nothavetaken theallegedtetaliatoryacdon.''Raub v.Cam bell,785F.3d 876, 885(4t. h Ciy 2015)(alteradonsinoriginal)(citationsomitted). Rogezsallegesthathewasdischatged from them edicalin6tvnaryin retaliadon fotthe flling ofgrievancesand com plaintsaboutH SA Landtnlm and thenursing staff Rogersclnim s thisacdon would deterapetson ofnorm alresolve from flling grievancesand thusD r. M acD onald and H SA Lanclmlm are liable forretaliadng againsthim fotexercising llisFirst Am endm entrights.D efendantsrespond thatD r.M acD onald released Rogersback into genezalpopulaéon fotm edicalreasons,thatH SA Lancllnxm wasuninvolved irlhousing assignm ents,and thatRogers'srightto filegrievanceswasn'tnegadvely im pacted by the clischarge. 15 D efendantsconcede thatthe flling ofgtievancesisptotected speech underthe First Am endm ent.Thisfulfèllsthe & stprong oftheabovetestassessing retaliatory conduct.The onlyrem nining quesdonsarewhetherthe acdon taken by D r.M acD onald and H SA Lancltnxm wasadverse to Rogers'sFirstAm endm entrightsand whethertherew asacausal connecdon between Rogets'sféing ofgtievancesand hishousing assignm ent. ln herdeposidon,H SA Lanclm'm tesdhed thatshehad no rolein inm ates'housing assignm entsand thatonly doctorscould orderthe dischargeofa padentfrom the infitm ary. ECF N o.83-3,at56.Rogerspresentsno evidenceto thecontrary.H SA Lanfqtnlm thetefore had no pezsonalitw olvem entin the alleged tetaliadon. A sto D r.M acD onald,thereisno evidence causally linking Rogers's61ing of grievancesand the decision to dischargehim ftom tlïe m edicalinfitm ary.Rogersseeksto infercausadonfrom thteefacts:(1)llisremovalftom theinfst'matyonApril28wasnot recordedit' lthemedicalrecord,asotherplacementorderswete,(2)Dr.MacDonzdoffered no reason fortheApril28 rem ovalitllzisdeposidon,butonly provided onein his declataéonsuppottingthemotiopforsummaryjudgment,and(3)Rogetswasmovedback to theinfirm aryonly tlzreedayslater,where he rem ained foranotherthree weeks.These factsareinsufûcientto supporta finding ofcausadon.The absenceofanotadon in the m edicalzecord providesno basisto suggestthatRogers'sdischatgecam e becauseofany grievance hefiled.Indeed,given Rogers'sconsistentpattern offlling gdevancesdtuing the period,thetransfetbacktotheinfit-marythreedayslatersuggestsjusttheopposite. W ith regard to D r.M acD onald'sradonale,he statesin llisdeclaration in suppol'tof sllmmaryjudgmentthatamedicalreasonfordischargingRogersonApril28wasthatthere 16 were highezêatesofinfecdon in the infit'mary and Rogezshad suffered oneinfectbn already. ECF N o.83-2,at2.W hilethisexplanadon doesnotappeatin therecord beforeD r. M acD onald'sdeclatadon,D r.M acD onald wasneverditectly asked dtuing llisdeposidon why heclischarged Rogerson April28.H owever,in response to Rogers'sApdl29 em ezgency gzievancecom pbining ofthe dischazge,D z.M acD onald responded,fo ue to lim ited beds,you atethehealthiestperson in theinfit-m arp''ECF N o.83-10,at3.Tllis explanadon forthe dischargeisnotinconsistentwith thatoffered in Dr.M acD onald's declarationinsupportofslxmmatyjudgment.ThatDr.MacDonaldofferstwo com plem entary,butnotidenécal,explanadonsfozclischatging Rogerswould notpet-m ita reasonablejutortoinferretaliadon againstRogersforlliscompbints. M oreover,the zecord dem onstratesthatthe dischazgehad no im pacton Rogers's ability to flle gdevances.AsD efendantspointoutaRogers'srateofftling gtievanceschanged little from m onth to m onth in theHm esturounding thealleged retaliadon.Rogersflled four grievancesandcomplaintsin March,fourinApril,twoinMay,thteeinJune,threeinJuly, and fourin August.See enerall ECF N o.83-10.Thisdm eline doesnotsuggestthe existenceofevidence(circlxmstandalorotherwise)ofretaliatoryactioninAplilresultingin an adverseim pacton Rogets. Rogerspointsoutthatffga)plaindff'sTacttzalresponseto theretaliatoryconduct'isnot disposiùveofthequestion ofwhethezsuch action would likely detera person oforclinary fit-mness.''Marénv.Duffy,858F.3d 239,250 (4th Cir.2017)(quoting Constandne,411F.3d at500).Thisisttaze,butthecouttdoesfindRogers'sreaction and sentimentsto beindicative ofwhatan ordinaryresponsemight6e,andveryindicaéveoftheimpactofthedischarge. 17 SeeDa ev.Rubenstein,417Fed.App'x317,*319(4thCit.2011)(affirmingthedismissalof acllim ofretaliation astheplaintiffcondnued to filegrievancesand then filed alawsuitafter thesupposedtetaliatoryacéon bypzison ofhcials)rfrl'hepbinéffjfailed to demonstratethat theconductofprison officialsadvetselyaffectedhisconsdttzdonalrights.rfheplaindffj pzoceededtoftlewzittengrievancesontheissueandthenfzedtilislawsuit.'l.Rogets's sentim entshere indicatethathe feltundeterred by hisdischatge from theinfitm ary.Indeed, w hen asked dlxring hisdeposidon ifhe feltthatllisability to fllegrievancesw asbeing interfered with,Rogersresponded thathedid noteverfeelthisw ay.ECF N o.83-1,at109. Rogershasthusfailed to show eitheracausalconnecdon between llisfiling ofgrievances and Dt.M acD onald'sorH SA Landrum 'sacdons,oran adverseimpactfrom the discharge. A ccordingly,D efendants'm odon asitpertainsto CountIV isGR AN TE D and CountIV is D ISM ISSED . V. CountV assertssupetvisory liabilityofD r.M acD onald and H SA Lancltnlm forthe actionsofNurseCatter.Becausej 1983 doesnottecognizeliabilitybased upon res ondeat su erior,fflfjorprisonoffcialstobeheldliableunderj1983forconstittdonalitjudes inflictedbytheirsubordinates,aninmatemustestablishthat:(1)thesupervisorhadacttzaloz constructive knowledgethatlzissubotclinate wasengaged in conductthatposed a fpervasive and unreasonable'risk ofconsétudonalinjury;(2)thesuperdsor'sresponseto tllis knowledgewasso inadequateasto show rdeliberateindifference ortacitauthorization'ofthe offensivepracdces;and (3)therewasan Yffitmativecausallink'between thesupervisor's 18 inacéonandthepardcularconsdtudonalinjurysuffered.''Wilkinsv.U ton,639Fed.App'x 941,945(4thCir.Mar.2,2016)(quotingShaw v.Sttoud,13F.3d791,799(4th Cir.1994)). RogetsallegesthatN tuse Cartet scm bbed hiswoundsun1 they bled forthe ptzm osç ofcliscoutaging hisgrievance and com plaintf1ling.4D efendantscontestthisand argue that thezeisno record thatNutse Cartereverbreached the standard ofcare.W hetherN utse Cartercom m itted the alleged abuse doesnotaffectthe court'sdecision- Rogerspresentsno evidenceofa causallink between H SA Landnlm 'sorD r.M acD onald'saction orinacdon and N urse Cartet'stteatm entofRogers. Rogezsflled anllm berofcom plaintsregarding N kuseCartez,including hettteatm ent ofhisw ounds.See ECF N o.83-3,at200-201.HSA Landrum responded to these complaints,discussing som eofthem in person.Ld.aW hileNurseCarter'swound cleaning wasnotdiscussed in person,H SA Lancltnlm 'swritten responseencotuaged Rogetsto contactheriftherewereany fllttherissues.J-1. L'Ihistesponsedoesnotindicatetacit authorizadon ofordehbetateindifference towardsany alleged abuse.H SA Lancltnlm flltther teséfied in herdeposidon thatherroleasH SA only itw olved com murlicadon with doctots orwith the directorofnursing and thatshe nevertold N urse Carterhow to treatinm ates or directed herin anyw ay.Jdxat54.Rogershaselicited no evidenceshowingan af6tvnadve - causallink between H SA Landmam 'sacdonsorinactionsand N urse Cattet'swound treatm ent. 4RogersdoesnotZlegeaspeco cdateon whichN urseCartercomm itled thealleged abusebutfled hisoffenderrequest com plniningoftheabuseonApril22,2015.ECF N o.83-1,125. 19 Similarly,D r.M acD onald had lim ited knowledge ofNtzrse Carter'sacdonsasthey pertained to Rogers,and Rogershasshown no evidence ofa causallink be> een D r. M acD onald'sacdon and N urse Carter'saneged abuse.D r.M acD onald did,however, exam ineRogers'swoundson severaloccasionsshortly afterN urse Cattercleaned them and found no evidence ofabuse.ECF N o.83-2,at1-2.Rogersfailsto establish eitherH SA Landrlm 'sorD z.M acD onald'sawatenessoftheissueorany affitm adve causallink between theirsuperdsion and N utse Carter'sactivity.Fotthisreason,CountV fails.D efendants' moéonforsllmmaryjudgmentisGRANTED. W . Forthereasonsstated above,Counts1,IV,and V fail.CountsV and VIare dependentupon the substandveallegadonsofCounts1,IV ,and V and thusalso fail. Defendants'motionfozslxmmaryjudgmentisthereforeGRANTED.AIIcountsremnitning in Rogers'sam ended com plaintareD ISM ISSE D . An appropdate O rdershallbeissued today. Entered:rJ///èlzo(# fwf M r'TX' rr#f.W V-CZ-' M ichaelF.Uzbanski ClliefUlted StatesDistdctludge 20
]]>
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.
