Witt v. Redman et al, No. 7:2017cv00438 - Document 83 (W.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 9/13/2018. (tvt)

Download PDF

* Fylyl q:ii ' Ffqggf yr@4:K ATRQANQKN,V& z. >* *' Fl keo srp 1! 2212 IN TH E U M TED STA TE S D IST RIC T CO U R T JULt i. FOR TIIE W ESTERN DISTRICT 0* W RGINIA BY: R O AN O K E D IW SIO N LEONARD THO M AS W ITT, .. p CA SE NO.7:17CV00438 Plaintiff, V. M EM OM NDUM OPINION REDM AN,c K , By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad Senior U nited States DistrictJudge D efendants. The plaintiff,Leonard Thom as W itt a Virginiainmateproceeding pro K ,filed this civil . rights action tmder 42 U.S.C. j1983, alleging claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference to ilis serious m edicalneeds and related claim s,in violation ofhis constimtional rights. Atissue in thismemorandllm opinion aredefendants'motionsforsllmmaryjudgment addressing W itt's claims related to his m edicalcare.l After review of the record,the court concludesthatthesemotionsmustbegranted. 1. Backkround A . w itt'sAllegationsz TheUse ofForceIncident Atabout 11:18 a.m .on Septem ber 24,2015,W ittwas involved in an altercation with correctionalofficers. Among otherthings,he states that officers punched him in the mouth, 1 Witt v. Redman et al Doc. 83 1 Forbrevity'ssake,thecourtwi llrefertothepartieswhohavefiledthesemotions(ECFNos.40,42,48, 61,65,and76)asStthemedicaldefendants.''ThecourtwilladdressseparatelythepartialmotiontodismissSledby anotherFoupofdefendants(ECFNo.45)concerningmattersrelatedtotheallegeduseofexcessiveforce. 2 This summary of W itt's evidence is taken from his verified complaint and attached exhibits thathe incorporatesby reference. Dockets.Justia.com ,<* E% ' kicked him in the face,restrained him,picked him up using the chain attached to hishandcuffs and shackles,which wereexcessively tightened,and transportedhim yo Segregation. In segregation,antlrse exnmined W itt Shelogged herobservationsand then leftthe cell withouttreatingtheopen wotmdson hism ists,ankles,mouth,and forehead. W ittcomplainedto nightshiftofficersthathe wasin Gtunbearable pain alloverhisbody.'' Com pl.11,ECF No.1. The ox cerstold him to 5lea sick callrequest,and hewouldbeseen in them edicaltmitthenext day. Hecopplainsthathewent24hourswithoutanytreatmentforhispainorinjmies.3 On September 24, W ittsled an inform al complaint form 4 about not having received medicaltreatmentforllisphysicalinjmies. Compl.Ex.A,at2,ECF No.1-1. M s.Landnlm received thisform on September25 and responded on September 30,stating: GçYou were seen and treated on 9/24/15 by the nurse. lf you tare still having issues please put in a sick call followingthedirections.given on yotlrassignm entto specialhousing.'' Id. W iftfiledaregulargrievanceonOctoàer5,complairlingthatnoonehadtreatedhiscuts and bruises on Septem ber 24. He also claimed thatthe pain m edication EGdid notwork''and stated: EGIpaid formedicaltreatm ent. Ishouldn'thave to sign up for sick callto receive pain killers. Ineed to see a hand specialistmy hand is notbroken,itnomed (sicq. Ihave nerve dnm agesthatIwasnevrrtreated for. I'm requesting to betreatedwithouttheresubm itting a sick callslip.'' J. tlsat3. W arden W oodson ruled W itt'sgrievance <GUNFOUNDED,''stating: :1M s. 3 Among W itt'sexhibitsisagrievanceappealin which hestatesthaton September24 2015,hefled an , emergency grievance and received somepain medication at 10:21p.m.thatsame night. See Compl.Ex.A,at5, ECF N o.1-1. 4Thecourttakesjudicialnoticeofthefactthatfilinganinformalcomplaintform isgenerallytheflrststep an inmate willtake underthe Virginia Departmentof Corrections(C&VDOC'')Offender Grievance Procedure, OperatingProcedtlreCOP'')866.1.Dependingontheissueraisedintheform,itwillbeassijnedtoanappropriate soff member, who should write a response on the form and return it to the inmate wlthin fifteen days. If dissatisfed!theinmatemaythentakethenextstepunderOP 866.1by tiling aregularpievance. Thewarden orhis desipeew1llinvestigatethematterandissueaLevelIresponsetotheinmate,whocanthenappealtotheregional adm m istratorforaLevel11response. 2 Landrum,HSA states you were seen and treated on 9-24-15 by the nurse....According to , doczlmentation you were seen and treated by the doctor on 10-9-15 per your request and medication wasordered. Therewasno evidencefotmd to supportyotlrallegations.'' JZ This . finding wasupheld on appeal. W ittstatesthatthedoctorsatthe Augustamedicaldepartmentidenti/ed thenumbnesshe was experiencing in llis lefthand and righttoes as ltGnel've dnm age'thatwas developed as a result of the extrem e tightness'' of the restraints the offcers used on September 24, 2015. Compl. at 12. Dr.Landauer5 and Dr.M oreno treated W ittfor this condition and prescribed GEnerve dam age m edicatiom '' Id. W itt complains that these doctors Gtal'e not foot or hand specialists who specialize in the field of nerve dnm age.'' Id. W ittstates that GGnone of the doctorls')methodsoveran eleven monthperiod broughtlhimlany kind ofrelieforcameclose to relieving thenllmbnessfrom (his)toesand lefthand,''and yet,these doctorsneverrefen' ed W ittto a specialist. Id. W ittalso blamesM ediko,PC,the agency thatprovidesmedicalservices to Augusta'sinm ates,and M ediko'sGçllead Doctor,''Dr.Tek1u,6forthe alleged shortcomingsof theiremployees.Id.at4. 2. The GtA llergic Reaction'' W ittalso allege' sthat$+0thdoctors(M orenoatldLandauer)failedtomonitorthestrength and effects''ofthemedicationsShey had prescribed to him. Ld.,sat12. On July 11,2016,W itt fled an offenderrequestto the m edicaldepartment,stating: GGl'm having a very seriousallergic reaction. M y inside was frying.'' Com pl.Ex.A ,at9. W ittcom plained thathis m edication w as too strong and wmsmalcing him sick,butno one wasm onitoring hism edication. He also stated S Inthe complaint, W ittiidentifiedthisdefendantasDr.Landaver. The defendants'pleadingsindicatethat the doctor'snameisproperly spelledLandauer.Thecom'twilldirecttheclerktocorrectthedocketaccordingly. 6 In the complaint)W ittidentifed this defendantas Dr. Tekly. The defendants'pleadings,however, indicatethathisnameisproperly spelled Teklu.Thecourtwilldirecttheclerkto correctthedocketaccordingly. 3 thatthe taste ofthem edication stayed in hismouth,and he smelled itwhen he blew hisnoseor used the toilet. W itt declared that the m edical treatm ent and pain m edication provided at Augusta were notworldng. He reported thatllis lefthand wasttgetting more numbg)by the months''andthatheneededGGto seeahandspecialist''togetpropertreatment.JZ Inresponseto thisrequestform ,Nurse Dnm en wrote: EGYou haven'tbeen seen by the doctorsince Feb. Please putin a sick callrequestifyou need to. Yotlrmedication expiresin Aug.'' Id.N o oneprovided W ittwith imm ediate treatmentfprthe symptom s thathe described as an allergic reaction. He Gisuffered foroveraperiod ofsixtydays(fromjtheeffects''ofthereaction Sstmtilthemedication wasoutofhissystem entirely.''Compl.at13. M edicalRecordsand Photocopies On July 10 and 24,2017,W ittfiled requestform sto the m edicaldepsrtm ent,asking to review Msm edicalfile and buy photocopies ofcertain pagesfrom it,related to the use offorce incidentin Septem ber2015. M s.Landnlm allegedly did notrespond to these requestsproperly orprovidethe requested copieswithin ffteen days asrequired by prison policy. W ittthen fled pievances aboutthisproblem thatwere rejected as requests for services or were otherwise denied. W ittdid notobtain copies ofthese recordsuntilafter his transfer to anotherprison in OctoberI 2017. W ittalleges that Nurse Landnlm acted as she did to cover up the m edical department'sfailure to providehim propermedicaltreatmentforhisinjtlrieson September24, 2015. 4 B. TheD efendants'Evidence; TheUse ofForceIncident Ifan inmatelsexperiencing acute symptoms,he should submitasick callrequestto be scheduled to see a physician. W hen W ittentered Segregation afterthe use offorce incidenton ' September24,2015,anurse explained thisprocedtlre to him . Thentlrse also exnm ined him and notedthefollowing injmies: abrasionsto Mslefttemple,rightlowerlip,bothwrists,and boih ankles. Thentlrserecorded thatW ittcomplained ofsom entlm bnessin llisleftm ist,butthathe could rotate itand m akea fist. The nursefotmd thatno imm ediatetreatm entwasneeded. After W ittm ade furthercom plaintsthatrlightofpain from hisabrasions,a ntlrse visited llim at6:00 mm.in Segregation.Sheexnminedhim andinstnzctedhim totakeIbùprofen200mg. On September27,W ittcom plained thathisleftm istpain had notimproved. The nttrse who examined W ittreferred llim to see a doctor,and an appointmentwasscheduled forOctober In the m eantim e, a doctor ordered an X-ray of W itt'sleftwrist that was performed on September 29. Dr.M oreno reviewed the X-ray results,which revealed no gacttlre. W ittwas inform ed ofthese resultson October1. Dr.Landauerexam ined W itton October9,2015. Sheobserved no swelling orwenkness in hisleftwrist,although he complained ofsevere pain and tingling. She diar osed W ittwith acute sm ptoms of carpaltllnneland prescribed Prednisone. She also recom mended thatW itt wearabrace.onceheleftSegregation and returned to GeneralPopulation. On O ctober29,2015,W ittcom plained to a nurse ofongoing nllm bness from his hand to his elbow and in histoes. The nurse refen' ed him to a doctor. Dr.Landauerexnmined W itton 1 Thissl'mmary ofthemedicaldefendants'records, undisputedunlessotherwise noted,istaken 9om the ao davitsofDianeH.Landauer,M .D.,VirginiaDamen,R.N.,and Kaveh Ofogh,M .D.,founderand chiefexecutive ov cerofM ediko,PC2thehealth careservicescompanythatW itthasnamed asadefendant. SeeECF Nos.63,67, and 78. The ao davlts are supported by copies ofW itt,s medicalrecords 9om the time period when he was incarceratedatAugusta. 5 N ovember 6,2015. She noted no deform ity to the leftwristbut docum ented a well-healed laceration on the leftthumb.W itt'sfeethad norm alpulses. Dr.Landauerassessed W ittwith left wristandhandpain andtinglingthatworsened atnight. Sheprescribednortriptyline25mg (to treatnervepain)ahd awristbrace.ShealsoorderedbloodworkandtoldW itttofollow up in a month. The blood work wasperform ed on November 13,and Dr.M oreno reviewed the results, which wem norm al. W ittrefused the wristbrace,stating thatitinitated llis hands and made them throb. Dr.Landauer saw W ittagain on December 4,2015,after he complained ofcontinued m ist discom fort and tingling to his left elbow and left shoulder. His physical examination showed no swelling,no wotmds,no deform ity,and fullrange of m otion. His leftwrist was tender on extension. Dr.Landauer prescdbed an analgesic balm and Prednisone (to treat intlammation), She also instructed W itton how to perform gentle exercisesto improve his sym ptom s overtim e. Ata follow up appointm enton January 14,2016,W ittcomplained ofcontinued tingling in the lefthand and shoulder. Dr.Landauer prescribed another rotmd of analgesic balm and renewed the prescription for nortriptyline 25 m g. She did notbelieve thatfurthertesting was indicated atthattim e. On February 23,2016,W ittmetwith Dr.M oreno. W ittcom plained ofchronicnum bness and tingling in hislefthand and fourth and tm h Engers,mzm bnessin both feet,and leftshoulder pain. On exnm ,Dr.M oreno noted thatW ittappeared com fortable and in no acute distress,with ( anonpalgaitand no lim p. Dr.M oreno increased the dosageofnortriptyline to 75 m g,renewed theanalgesicbalm ,andprescribedNaprosyn (totreatpain).. 6 W itfsm edicalrecordsfrom Augusta do notincludeany additionalcomplaints9om him tmtilM ay 2016. A nurse evaluated W ittfor a work physicalon M ay 15,2016,and he denied illnessand complaintsatthattim ë. 2.TheçdAllergicReaction'' On July 11,2016,W ittsubm itted an appointm ent request to the m edical depm ment, complaining that he was having an allergic reaction to a m edication. Per procedure,Nurse Dnmen review edtherequest.Requestformsare fornonem ergency simations. SeeP1.'sCounter Aff.Ex.6,ECF N o.80-1. If an inm ate is having acute symptom s and believes he needs a doctor'sim mediate attention,the properprocedtlre isforhim to file a sick callrequest. Nm se Dnmen statesthat,inherclinicaljudgment,shedidnotbelievethatthesymptomsW itt'srequest form described resulted from an adverse drug reaction orthatthey required imm ediate m edical attention. She advised W ittto file a sick callrequestifhe felthe needed to see a doctor. The medicalrecordsdö notreflectthatW ittmadea sick callrequestorsubm itted additionalrequests abouthissuspected allergicreaction in July 2016. On October 14,2016,Nurse Damen saw W ittforcomplaintsthathe washaving whathe perceived to be an allergic xeaction to a m edication. She ùoted his com plaints ofright-sided head pain and colored nasaldischarge. He claim ed thathe had experienced these symptom s sincehebegan taking nortriptyline(firstprescribed in November2015)and thathe could still tastethemedication,although ithadheen discontinued inAugust.W ittalàoreported nervepain in histoes,m ists,andfingers.NtlrseDnm en refen'ed him to seethedoctor. 0n October 27,2016,Dr.Landauer saw W ittfor these reported symptom s. He also complained ofrightknee pain and head pain and reported llis beliefthatthe nortriptyline had aggravated hisnose and throat. TheresultsofDr.Landauer'sphysicalexam werewithin riorm al 1 : l lim its. She observed ilo swelling in W itt'srightknee and noted thathe had fullrange ofm otion , ' in his leftm ist. The'doctordiagnosed W ittwith rightknee pain and rightnose sinusitis. She recomm ended aleftwiistsplint,butW ittdeclined it. Thedoctoralso ordered an X-ray ofW itt's rightknee8 and prescribed Ibuprofen 200, Prednisone 20 mg,and Azitkomycin 250 mg (an antibiotic). To Dr.Landauer'sknowledge,and according to the medicalrecords,October27,20. 16, was the last tim e W ittsaw any m edical provider at Augusta. After that date,the m edical 1 depsrtm entreceived no furthercom plaints9om W ittaboutan allergic reaction. On October20, 2017, W ittwastransferred f' rom Augustato anotherVDOC prison facility.9 C. Claim s and ProceduralBackground Liberally constnling W itt'sj 1983complaint,heallegesthefollowingclaimsforrelief:lo (1)M s.W atford acted outsideherjob description on September24,2015,thereby causing or failingtoprotectW ittfrom çventsthatintlicted cruelandunusualptmishmenton him ;(2)Sgt '. Redman used excessive force againstW ittthatday;(3)M ajorRusselland lnvestigatorLokey conspiredto falsifyand/orwithhold information aboutW itt'sinjtuiesfrom thesGtemagistrate; (4) W arden W oodson and RegionalAdministrator Ponton conspired to uphold the resultof Investigator Lokey's investigation of the September 24 incident, and did not order a new N investigation;(5)NtlrseLalldrum,asamedicalsupervisoratAugusta,failed to enstlrethatW itt received immediatemedicaltreatmenton September24,2015;(6)Dr.Landauer,Dr.Teklu,Dr. M oreno, and their em ployer, M ediko, PC,provided ineffective m edical care for W itt's nerve gTherecord indica 'testhatW ittundem entanX-ray ofhiskneeon November1, 2016,withnorm alresults. SeeM ediko M em.Supp.,Ofogh Aff.Ex.,at45,ECF No.67. . . 9 w it. tiscunvntly incarceratedatLunenberg CorrectionalCenter. 10 w itt'scomplaihtdoesnotnumberseveralofhisclaims. Accordingly,the courthasassigned adifferent ntlmberingsystem toplaceal1claimsapproximately in chronologicalorder. 8 dnm age and failed to m onitor çithe strength and effects''ofmedication they prescribed,causing W ittto sufferan ongoing ttallergicreaction'';(7)in July2016,NtlrseDnmen derlied W ittaccess to a doctor for treatmentof that G:allergic reaction'';an'd (8) in July 2017,Nurse Landrum Eûdisregarded and derlied''W itt'srequeststo review and purchase photocopies ofportions ofllis medicalrecordsto coverup m edicaldepartm enterrors. Compl.at7-12. Themedicaldefendants(NtlrseLandrum,Dr.M oreno,Dr.Teklu,NtlrseDamen,M ediko, 1 and Dr.Landauer)havefiled separatemotionsforsllmmaryjudm ent,supported by affidavits and m edicalrecords. W itthasresponded with affidavitsand otherexhibits,m aking the motions ripefordisposition. II. D iscussion A.TheSllmmary Judgm entStandard ofReview A courtshould grantsllmmaryjudgmentGçifthe movantshowsthatthere isno genuine 7 disputeasto anymaterialfactandthemovantisentitled tojudgmentasamatteroflaw.'' Fed. R.Civ.P.56(a). Gfonly disputesover'factsthatmightaffectthe outcomeofthe suittmderthe governing 1aw willproperly preclude the entry ofsummary judgment.'' Anderson v.Libertv Lobbv.Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).A disputeaboutafactisgenuineliiftheevidenceissuch thatareasonablejurycouldreturnaverdictforthenonmovingparty.''J. lz.Thecourtmustview the record as a whole and draw al1 reasonable inferences from the facts in the light most favorableto W itt asthe nonmovingparty. Shaw v.Stroud,13 F.3d 791,798(4th Cir.1994). W ittGtm ay not rest upon the m ere allegations or denials of his pleading,butm ust set forth specitk factsshowing thatthereisa gentlineissue fortrial. Anderson,477U .S.at248. 11 The courthas omitted internalquotation marks, alterations,and citationshere and elsewhere in'this opinion,exceptwhereothem isenoted. 9 The m edical defendants have Kled affidavits and docum entation in support of their m otions,arguing thatthey did notactwith deliberate indifference to any seriousmedicalneeds. Accordingly,to survive the defendants'motions,W ittm usthave presented sux cientevidence thatcouldcarrythebuidenofproofofhisclaimsattrial. Shaw,13F.3dat798.Gtgujnsupported , ' speculation isnotsufficientto defeata summaryjudgmentmotion.'' Baberv.Hosn.Cop .of Am.,977F.2d872,874-75(4thCir.1992). B. InitialM atters OffkialCapacity State offkials,in theirofficialcapacities,cnnnotbe sued tmderj1983 formonetary dnmages. See W illv.M ich.Dep'tofStatePolice,491U.S.58 (1989). Thus,the courtwill grantsummary judgmentforthe medicaldefendants as to any claims againstthem in their oflk ial capacities. The court will separately addzess W itt's claim s against them in their individualcapacities,however. 2.Claims(1)tlzrough(4)andDr.Teklu W ittdoesnotallegethateach ofthe defendantshehasnsm ed waspersonally involved in eachoftheèlaimspresentedinhiscomplaintasrequiredforliabilitytmderj1983. SeeAshcroft v.Iqbal,556 U.S.662,676(2009)(holdingthatto establish defendants'liability underj 1983, 1&aplaintiffm ustplead thateach ...defendant,through theofficial'sown individualactions,has violated the Constitution'). Forthatreason,the medicaldefendants are entitled to sllmmary judgmentasto any claim thatdoesnotnnmethem,including Claims(1)through (4)aboutthe excessiveforceincidentand investigation. M oreover,because W ittstatesno factsaboutactionstaken by Dr.Teldu,personally,that violatedhisconstitutionalrights,thecourtalso willgrantsummaryjudgmentforthisdefendant. 10 J.t l. x Indeed,W ittprovidesno evidence thatDr.Telclu worked atoreven visited Augusta or otherwiselearned ofW itt'sm edicalconcernsatthatfacility. 3. M ediko The courtwillalso g' rantsummary judgmentforM ediko,PC,as a defendant. It is tmdisputedthatM ediko isaprivate company thatprovidesmedicalservicesto VDOC inmates. Privatecompnnies...cnnnotbeheld liableforviolating a plaintic sdghtssolely because they employ an individualwho com m itted an unlawf'ulact. Austin v. . ParnmountParks.Inc.,195 F.3d 715,728 (4th Cir.1999). Rather,they can be sued tmder j 1983 only ifthe violation resultsfrom the company's custom or policy.J#=.Cf.M onellv.Dep'tofSoc.Servs.,436U.S.658,691(1978)(holding thatthere isno vicadousliability againstlocalgovemmententitiesfor j 1983 claims). ' Sonick v.M nnninc,No.CV TDC-16-0709,2017 W L 3668755,at*8 (D.M d.Aug.22,2017), aY d,717 F.App'x 300 (4th Cir.2018). W itthas alleged no specitk custom orpolicy of M ediko thatresulted in the alleged shortcom ings ofthe medicalcare he received atAugusta. Accordingly,he cnnnothold M ediko liable forthe actionsofitsemployees,and the company is entitledtosllmmaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw. 4.Prison PolicyViolations Allegationsthatstate oftk ialshavenotfollowed theirown policiesorprocedtlresdo not nmounttoanyconstitutionalviolations,and,therefore,theyarenotactionabletmderj 1983.See Urlited Statesv.Caceres,440U.S.741,752-55(1978);Ricciov.Ctv.ofFairfax,907F.2d 1459, 1469 (4th Cir.1990)(<:1fstate 1aw grantsmore procedmalrightsthan the Constitution would otherwise require,a state's failtlre to abide by that1aw isnota federaldue process issue.'). Similarly,Gtgllnmates have no constimtionalentitlementordue process interestin accessto a grievanceprocedure. An inmatethuscnnnotbring a j1983claim alleging denialofa specific ievance process.'' Booker v.S.C.Dep't of Co1 'r., 855 F.3d 533, 541 (4th Cir.2017). 11 Accordingly,thedefendantsareentitledtosllmmaryjudgmentregardingany allegationthatthey did notcomply with a prison policy provision ortim etable,orfor exam ple,thatthey m isused policy by requiringW ittto usea sick callrequestform to ask foradoctorvisit. C.M edicalCare The Eighth Am endment guarantees prisoners freedom from cnzel and unusual plnishment.U.S.Const.nmend.VII1,j3.Assuch, (aqprisonerhasaconstitutionalrighttothemedicalcarenecessaryto addressllis seriousmedicalneeds. SeeEstellev.Gnmble,429U.S.97,103-04 (1976). And a prison official's lçdeliberate indifference to an inm ate's seriousm edicalneeds constim tes crtzel and tmusualpurlishment tmder the Eighth Amendment'' See Jackson v.Liahtsey,775 F.3d 170,178 (4th Cir.2014). Thenecessary showing ofdeliberate indifference can bem anifested by prison oo cialsin responding to a prisoner's m edical needs in various ways, including intentionally denying or delaying medicalcare,orintentionally interfering with prescribed medicalcare. SeeEstelle,429U.S.at104-05. Importantly,ajudicialassessmentofdeliberate indifferencehastwoaspects- an objectiveinquiryanda subjectiveinquiry. See Jackson,775 F.3d at178. To satisfy the objective inquiry ofa deliberate indifferenee claim,G&the inm ate's medicalcondition m ustbe serious--one thathas been diagnosed by a physician asmandating treatm entoronethatisso obviousthateven a 1ay person would easily recoènizethenecessity foradoctor'sattention.'' SeeJackson,775 F.3dat178(internalquotationmarksomitted). A medicalcondition isshown as objectively serious when it GGwould result in further signitkant injury or llnnecessary and wanton iM iction ofpain ifnottreated.'' See Gagon v.M ccoy, 593 F.3d 610,620 (7th Cir.2010). To satisfy the subjective inquiry of a deliberate indifferencq claim, the plaintiff m ust show that the public official Glknows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate safety or health.'' See Fnrmerv.Brennan,511U.S.825,837 (1994). A deliberate indifference claim mustsatisfy ahigh bar,and thatbarisnotm etby showing thatGsan oftk ialshould have known ofarisk;he orshemusthave had actualsubjective knowledgeof both the inmate's seriousm edicalcondition and the excessive risk posed by the ofscial'saction orinactiom'' SeeJacksom 775F.3d at178. Formica v. Aylor, No. 16-7418, 2018 W L 3120790, at *7-8 (4th Cir. Jtme 25, 2018) (unp' ublished). In otherwords,&&acomplaintthataphysician hasbeen negligentin diagnosing ortreating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of m edical mistreatment under the Eighth 12 Amendment''Estelle,429 U.S.at106ClM edicalmalpracticedoesnotbecomeaconstimtional violation merely becausethevictim isaprisoner.'). Thus,to survivesllmmaryjudgment,W itt mustpresentevidence showing more than a tdmere errorofjudgmentorinadvertentfailureto provide medical care, or lMs ownl mere disagreement concem ing questions of medical judgment''Germainv.Sheadn,531F.App'x 392,395(4thCir.201. 3)(unpublished). NtlrseLandrum- claim (5) The courtwillassum e withoutsnding,for purposes of this opinion,thatthe pain and numbness W ittsuffered 9om lliscuts and bruises following the Septem ber 24,2015,incident ultim ately qualified as a serious m edical need. W itt's claim against Nurse Landnzm fails, however,onthesubjectiveinquiryofthedeliberateindifferenceanalysis- whethersheGGknew of and disregarded''any IGexcessive risklsl''to W itt's health when she did not enstlre thathe receivedimmediatetreatmentforhisphysicalinjllriesthatday. Formica,2018W L 3120790,at *9.G'lW jhenamedical.professionalofajailfacilityknowsofasedousmedicalneed,theEighth Am endp entrequiresreasonableaction.'' Id. W ittdoes notclaim thatNtlrse Landrum was presentin Segregation on September24, 2015. Rather,he seeks to hold her liable based on her supervisory role in Augusta's m edical department. Supervisory officials may not be held vicadously liable under j1983 for the tmconstitutionalconductoftheirsubordinates,however. Iqbal,556 U.S.at676. To holdN urse Landnlm as a supervisorliable forothers'failure to provide him im mediate treatm entthatday, W itt must establish (1) that she knew a jubordinate's conduct posed a GKpervmsive and unreasonable''risk ofconstitutionalinjury to W itt,and herlmreasonably inadequateresponseto thatrisk som ehow caused the violation of W itt's constitm ionalrights,Shaw v.Stroud, 13 F.3d 791,799 (4th Cir.1994);or 2) thatççconductdirectly causing the deprivation was done to 13 effectuateanofficialpolicyorcustom forwhich (NlzrseLandrnmjwasresponsible.''Stricklerv. W aters,989F.2d 1375,1387(4th Cir.1993). W ittm akesnone ofthese showings. He doesnotpresentevidencethatNtzrse Landnzm , personally orthrough hersupervisory policies,caused the intake nurse notto provide W ittany treatm ent when he entered Segregation on September 24. By September 25, when Nttrse Landrum received W itt's inform alcom plaintform aboutreceiving no treatment,a nurse had already evaluated W ittat6:00 mm .thatm om ing and provided him with pain m edication. W itt J him self does not state what additionaltreatment he believes was necessary atthat tim e. On Septem ber30,when NtlrseLandnlm wroteherresponseto W itt'scomplaintform ,he had seen a nurseagain on September27,hadbeenrefen' edforan examinationby adoctor(whichoccun' ed October9),andhadundergonean X-ray ofMsleftwrist. On thesefacts,thecourtcannot5nd thatW itthaspresented any disputed factby which he could show thatNm seLandrum responded unreasonably to llism edicalneedsby advising him to file a sick callrequestifheneeded further medicalcare.ThecourtwillgrantsnmmaryjudgmentforNtlrseLandrum astoClaim (5). Dr.M oreno and Dr.,Lu dauer Liberally construing W itt's submissions,he claim s that Dr.M oreno and Dr.Landauer provided ineffective treatm entsthatdid notrelieve thepain and numbnessin llism istand toes, when they should havereferred him to see anerve specialist. W ittalso claim sthatthesedoctors should havem ore closely m onitored theeffectsofm edicationsthey prescribed. W ittrepeatedly statesthatthe doctors'inactionsshow theirdeliberate indifference. He cnnnot,however,build a j 1983 claim merely by reciting this element ofthe constitutionalstandard withoutfacts to supportit. SeeIqbal,556U.S.at678 (findingplaintiY spleadingsinsux cientthattenderonly 14 tçlabelsand conclusions,''1&a formulaic recitation ofthe elem entsofa cause ofaction,''oritnaked assertionsdevoidoffurtherfactualenhancemenf'). The tmdisputed evidçnce show s that Dr.M oreno and Dr.Landauer never ignored or refused to provide treatmentwhen they were alerted to W itt'sp edicalcomplaints. The record reflectsthatW ittw asseen by these doctorsmultiple times,thatDr.Landauerdiagnosed W itt's com plaints'abouthism istandtoesascarpaltllnnel, and thatboth doctorsprovidedtreatm entàor testing directed to addressthatcondition and relieve W itt's symptoms. Over severalm onths in theircare,W ittreceived X-rays,medications forintlammation and nervepain,adjustmentsto those m edications,a wristsplint,lab work,and instructionsfortherapeutic exercises. Afterthe lastvisitwith Dr.M oreno on Febrtzary 23,2016,W ittdid notrequestfurther attention from a doctor for the condition of his A istand toes,or for adjustments to his medication or the prescribed dosage. By claim ing thatthe doctors,nevertheless,should have checked with him aboutthe medication'seffects,orshould have senthim to a nerve specialistm onthsearlier,W itt is asserting merely llis nonprofessional'disagreement with their medicaljudgments. Such contentionscnnnotprove deliberate indifference. See,e.:.,Dulany v.Cnrnahan,132 F.3d 1234, 1240(8th Cir.1997)($(1n thefaceofmedicalrecordsindicatingthattreatmentwaspp videdand physician ax davits indicating thatthe care provided was adequate,an inm ate cannotcreate a question offactby merely statingthatshedid notfeelshereceived adequatetreatment').W itt simply doesnotpresentfacts showing Dr.M oreno and Dr.Landauerknew thatthe care they provided to him placed him atan excessiverick ofhnrm atany time. Jackson,775 F.3d at 178. W itt also presents no evidence that eitherdoctorresponded tmremsonably to his condition and symptom sas they observed them . See Form ica,2018 W L 3120790,at*9. Furtherm ore,other than 'his own self-diagnosis,W itt offers no proof thathe suffered any allergic reaction to llis 15 . 1 medication. Forthe'reasonsstated,the courtconcludes thatDr.M oreno and Dr.Landauerare entitledto sllmmaryjudgment. 3. N urse D nm en In this claim ,W ittcontendsthathisreportofsuffering an allergic reaction in July 2016 should havepromptedN lzrse Dmnen to schedulehim imm ediately to see adoctor. NtzrseDam en states thatshe,exercisingherprofessionalmedicaljudgment,didnotbelievethesymptomsW itt . described required im mediate attention f' rom a physician orthatthey indicated W ittwashaving an allergic reaction. Indee'd,as disrussed,the m edical records do not include any doctor's diagnosisofan allergic reaction. W itt'smere disagreem entwith Nurse Dnm en'sassessmentof llismedicalneedsis insufficientto show deliberate indiflkrence. Germ ain,531F.App'x at395. Moreover,Nttrse Dnmen did notignore Witt'scomjlaintordeny him acdessto care. She advised llim to tilea sick callrequestifhe believed heneeded m edicalattention.12 W ju s gsto presentany factshowing thatthisresponse wasunreasonable tmdyrthe circumstancesasNurse Dnm en had assessed them . Accordingly,the courtconcludesthatNurse Dnm en is entitled to slzmmaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw. 4.NtlrseLandnlm--flaim (8) W itt com plains that Ntlrse Landrum did not ensure that he could review and copy portions of hism edicalrecords in July 2017,although prison policies required her to provide such serviceswithin fifteen days ofarequest.NurseLandrum 'salleged violation ofthispolicy, astateregulation,isnotactionabletmderj1983,whichvindicatesonly federalorconstitutional rights. Riccio,907 F.2d at 1469. Liberally constnzing W itt's submissions,he also contends thatNtlrse Landnlm denied him the requested copies of records to cover up events from Septem ber 24, 2015. W itt !2 Heapparently didso in October2016, when Dr.Landauerdiagnosedsimilarsymptomsassinusitis. 16 apparently intended to presentm edicalrecords with his crim inalcom plaintto show how Sgt. Redman had injtzred Mm. Vague and conclusory allegations about mere delays or inconveniences to an inmate's litigation efforts do not supporta j1983 claim thathe was deprivedofllisrightto accessthecotlrt. SeeLewisv.Casev,518U.S.343,35(1996)(holding thatto state j 1983 claim fordenialofaccessto courts,inmatemustshow injury to litigation efforts,i.e.,that a pleading IGhe prepared was dismissed for failtlre to satisfy som e technical requirement''becauseofdefendant'sactions). W ittfailsto show thatthedelay in obtaining the medicalrecordshe desired prevented him from sling a criminalcomplaint,catised offcials to declineprosecution,orhad any adverse impacton hisabilityto pursue this j1983 case. The courtwillgrantNm seLandnlm'smotionforsummaryjudgmentastoClaim (8). 111. C onclusion Forthe reasons stated,the courtconcludesthatthe medicaldefendants (M ediko,Dr. Teklu,Dr.M oreno,DrLandauer,NurseDamen,andNurse Landnzm)are entitled to summary judgmentasamatteroflaw.Anappropriateorderwillissueherewith. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m emorandllm opinion and accompanying orderto plaintiffand tocotmselofrecord forthedefendants. ENTER: This ?' gW day ofSeptember 2018. , SeniorUnited StatesDistdctJudge 17

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.