Beam v. Perez-Carrillo et al
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 24 Defendants A. Perez-Carrillo and Dimitra Glanton's Motion to Dismiss; granting 24 Defendants A. Perez-Carrillo and Dimitra Glanton's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions, enter judgment accordingly and CLOSE this file. Signed by Judge Charlene E. Honeywell on 4/14/2011. (BGS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
JAMES BEAM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
5:09-cv-535-Oc-36DNF
A. PEREZ-CARRILLO, Dentist, and
DIMITRA GLANTON, Dental Assistant,
Defendant.
________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
I. Background
Plaintiff James Beam, who is an inmate within the Florida
Department of Corrections, initiated this action by filing a pro se
civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. #1,
Complaint) on December 3, 2009, alleging that Defendants violated
Plaintiff's
constitutional
rights
by
showing
deliberate
indifference to his serious dental condition while Plaintiff was
incarcerated at Lake Correctional Institution (“Lake C.I.”).
generally Complaint.
See
In response, Defendants filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. #24, Motion)1 on October 21, 2010, attaching
1
Defendants filed a pleading entitled "Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgement." The
pleading attached 75 pages of exhibits. Consequently, the Court
construed the pleading as a Motion for Summary Judgment filed
pursuant to Rule 56 and provided notice to Plaintiff that it
intended to address the claim on this basis. See November 2, 2010
Order (Doc. #25). The Court further directed pro se Plaintiff to
file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and advised
Plaintiff of the requirements of Rule 56 in preparing his response
(continued...)
various supporting exhibits. Despite twice being directed by the
Court to file a response and being appraised of how to properly
respond to a Rule 56 motion, see Docs. #12 and #25, Plaintiff did
not file a response to the Motion, and the time for doing so has
expired.
See docket.
Consequently, the Court deems the Motion
ripe for review without the benefit of a response from Plaintiff.
According
to
the
Complaint,
Plaintiff
requested
dental
services for his "rotten teeth" and "gum desiese[sic]/infection"
but was not provided proper dental treatment.
Complaint at 8, ¶1.
Plaintiff alleges that he requested dental treatment on October 20,
2008, but did not receive any dental treatment until "August and
September 2009."
Plaintiff
suffering."
Id. at 8-9, ¶2.
claims
Id.
that
he
During this ten-month delay,
unnecessarily
endured
"pain
and
Specifically, Plaintiff states that he "would
often be awake all night pacing the floor" because "it hurt so
bad." Id. at 9, ¶4.
After his teeth were pulled, Plaintiff states
that the dentist, Dr. Perez-Carrillo, continued to deny him proper
dental treatment, in that the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff
with a partial dental plate so that Plaintiff could eat food
without experiencing further pain.
Id. ¶3.
Plaintiff attaches to
his Complaint a copy of the grievance and appeal he submitted in
connection with this request for dental treatment, (Doc. #1 at 11-
1
(...continued)
to the motion.
Id.
-2-
14), and an inmate request form submitted by Plaintiff requesting
to be sent to Lake Butler for dental services with accompanying
response by correctional officials.
Id. at 15.
As relief,
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $25,000 from
each Defendant, as well as injunctive relief, namely an order
directing the Defendants to fit Plaintiff with dentures.
Id. at
10.
Defendants seek summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff
can not demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation.
In
support
of
their
Motion,
Defendants
submit
Motion at 11.
the
following
exhibits: Plaintiff's Inmate Population Information Detail (Exh.
A); the Affidavit of A. Perez-Carrillo, DMD, the Senior Dentist at
Lake C.I., dated September 30, 2010 (Exh. B), attaching portions of
Plaintiff's dental records and grievances regarding his dental
treatment (Exhs. B1-B12); the Declaration of Dimitra Glanton, a
dental assistant at Lake C.I., dated October 18, 2010 (Exh. C),
attaching portions of Plaintiff's dental records (Exhs. C1-C2); a
copy of the Health Services Inmate Orientation Handbook (Exh. D);
an Affidavit of Dr. Thomas E. Shields, II, DDS, CCHP, the Director
of Dental Services for the Department of Corrections of Florida,
dated September 29, 2010 (Exh. E), along with relevant copies of
Plaintiff’s
dental
records
(Exh.
E1-E13);
Plaintiff's
"Dental
Treatment Record" for the period dated June 29, 2009 through
September 30, 2010 (Exh. F). For the reasons set forth infra, the
-3-
Court
finds
that,
based
upon
the
record
before
the
Court,
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
II.
A.
Applicable Law
Summary Judgment Standard
“Summary judgment is appropriate only if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Moton v. Coward, 631
F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011)(internal quotations and citations
omitted).
See also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
"The moving party
may meet its burden to show that there are no genuine issues of
material fact by demonstrating that there is a lack of evidence to
support the essential elements that the non-moving party must prove
at trial."
Moton, 631 F.3d at 1341 (citing Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
The standard for creating a
genuine dispute of fact requires the court to “make all reasonable
inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment,”
Chapman v. Al Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000)(en
banc) (emphasis added), not to make all possible inferences in the
non-moving party’s favor.
To avoid the entry of summary judgment, a party faced with a
properly supported summary judgment motion “bears the burden of
persuasion” and must come forward with extrinsic evidence, i.e.,
affidavits,
depositions,
answers
to
interrogatories,
and/or
admissions, and “set forth specific facts showing that there is a
-4-
genuine issue for trial.”
Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 529
(2006)(citations omitted); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Hilburn v.
Murata Electronics North America, Inc., 181 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th
Cir. 1999).
If there is a conflict in the evidence, the non-moving
party’s evidence is to be believed and “all justifiable inferences”
must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.
Beard, 548 U.S. at
529 (citations omitted); Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fl., 344 F.3d
1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2003).
“A court need not permit a case to go
to a jury, however, when the inferences that are drawn from the
evidence, and upon which the non-movant relies, are ‘implausible.’”
Cuesta v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 285 F.3d 962, 970 (11th
Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
Nor are conclusory allegations
based on subjective beliefs sufficient to create a genuine issue of
material fact.
Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210, 1217
(11th Cir. 2000).
“When opposing parties tell two different
stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so
that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt
that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for
summary judgment.”
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
In
the summary judgment context, however, the Court must construe pro
se pleadings more liberally than those of a party represented by an
attorney.
Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1301 (11th Cir. 2002).
-5-
B.
Eighth Amendment- Deliberate Indifference Standard
In the prison context, “[t]he Eighth Amendment can give rise
to claims challenging specific conditions of confinement, the
excessive use of force, and the deliberate indifference to a
prisoner’s serious medical needs.”
Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d
1288, 1303 (11th Cir. 2010)(citations omitted).
An inmate must
establish “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs” in order to
prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim.
97, 106 (1976).
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
This showing requires the inmate to demonstrate
two distinct prongs--an objective prong and a subjective prong.
Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Taylor
v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2000)).
First, an inmate must show that he had an “objectively serious
medical need,” the objective prong.
Id.
A serious medical need is
“one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment
or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily
recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Id. (citations
omitted).
“The medical need must be one that, if left unattended,
pos[es] a substantial risk of serious harm.”
Id.
Second, an inmate must establish that a defendant acted with
“deliberate
indifference”
subjective prong.
following elements:
to
his
serious
medical
need,
the
This requires the inmate to establish the
(1) that the prison official had subjective
-6-
knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) that the prison official
disregarded that risk; that the prison official's conduct was more
than gross negligence.
(11th Cir. 2008).
Burnette v. Taylor, 533 F.3d 1325, 1339
“Whether a particular defendant has subjective
knowledge of the risk of serious harm is a question of fact
‘subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference
from circumstantial evidence, and a factfinder may conclude that a
prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that
the risk was obvious.’”
Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1327
(11th Cir. 2007)(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842
(1994)). Further, each individual defendant is "judged separately
and on the basis of what that person knows."
Burnette v. Taylor,
533 F.3d at 1331.
When a prison official eventually provides medical care, the
prison official’s act of delaying the medical care for a serious
medical need may constitute an act of deliberate indifference. See
McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999); Harris
v. Coweta County, 21 F.3d 388, 393-394 (11th Cir. 1994); Brown v.
Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1537-39 (11th Cir. 1990).
In determining
whether the length of the delay violates the constitution, relevant
factors for the Court to consider include the nature of the medical
need and the reason for the delay.
McElligott, 182 F.3d at 1255.
The Court should consider whether the delay in providing treatment
worsened the plaintiff’s medical condition, and as such “[a]n
-7-
inmate who complains that delay in medical treatment [rises] to a
constitutional violation must place verifying medical evidence in
the record to establish the detrimental effect of the delay.” Hill
v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th
Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds, Hope v. Pelzar, 536 U.S.
730
(2002).
However,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
has
emphasized that not “every claim by a prisoner that he has not
received adequate medical treatment states a violation of the
Eighth Amendment.”
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105.
III. Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law
The following excerpt from Defendants' Motion sets forth the
chronological summary of Plaintiff’s dental treatment at Lake C.I.,
during the relevant time period set forth in the Complaint as
supported by the record:
On February 7, 2008, Plaintiff was received into the
Florida Department of Corrections. Exh. E. Plaintiff
was examined by a staff dentist on February 29, 2008.
Id.
The examination revealed that Plaintiff had an
existing upper partial plate (dentures). Id. There was
no indication that Plaintiff required any extractions,
however, restorations were recommended for teeth numbers
4, 5, 6, 11, 20, and 18.
Id.
The record does not
indicate that Plaintiff complained of pain or that he
required emergency dental care. Id.
On March 28, 20[08], Plaintiff was transferred to Lake
C.I. Exh. E. On April 2, 2008, Plaintiff’s records were
reviewed by a Senior Dentist at Lake C.I., William G.
Newton. Exh. E. Subsequent to the review, Plaintiff was
given a dental orientation, which included information
regarding the process for seeking emergency, urgent nonemergency (sick-call), and routine dental care.
Id.
Plaintiff was informed of the dental office’s sick call
hours and given instructions on maintaining proper oral
-8-
hygiene.
Id.
No complaints or issues were noted in
Plaintiff’s dental record on that date. Id.
On June 10, 2008, Plaintiff submitted an inmate request
seeking standard dental care. Exh. E. In his request,
Plaintiff stated that he was in need of a cleaning and
some fillings. Id. He also stated that he had three
teeth that might need to be extracted. Id. He did not
complain of any pain or indicate that he needed emergency
care.
Id.
Plaintiff requested to be placed on the
dental appointment list. Id. Plaintiff was given an
approximate wait time of three months and was instructed
that should he have any dental problems prior to his
appointment, sick-call was available to him for immediate
care. Id.
On July 14, 2008, Plaintiff filed a subsequent inmate
request stating that he needed three teeth pulled and
requesting that he be placed on “sick call.” Exh. E.
Plaintiff did not state he was experiencing pain or
discomfort. Id. On July 17, 2008, a response was issued
to Plaintiff informing him that call outs were not
provided for sick-call and that he needed to be present
at sick-call to receive assistance. Id.
On July 28, 2008, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. PerezCarillo. Exh. E. Dr. Perez-Carillo reviewed Plaintiff’s
health questionnaire, examined Plaintiff, and determined
that Plaintiff’s teeth numbers 24, 25, and 26 required
extractions. Id. Upon receiving consent from Plaintiff,
Dr. Perez-Carillo extracted the above referenced teeth.
Id. Plaintiff was given a pre-treatment rinse and both
topical and local anesthetics prior to the extractions.
Id.
Plaintiff tolerated the procedure well and was
prescribed Ibuprofen 200mg for any subsequent pain and
discomfort. Id.
On September 26, 2008, Plaintiff was given a complete
dental exam, which included x-rays and the development of
an individualized treatment plan. Exh. E.
Plaintiff’s
x-rays demonstrated significant bone loss which was
attributed to the advance stages of periodontal disease.
Id.
Periodontal disease, if left untreated, leads to
tooth mobility, however, it is rarely painful. Id. As
a result of Plaintiff’s advanced stage in the disease, he
was exhibiting tooth mobility. Id. Dr. Perez-Carillo
developed a treatment plan for Plaintiff which included
a cleaning, a root planning, which is a procedure to
-9-
clean under the gum line, two fillings, and several
extractions. Id. Plaintiff was to be re-evaluated for
more extractions after a periodontal examination was
administered. Once all required dental procedures were
completed, Plaintiff would be fitted for partial plates.
Id.
Dr. Perez-Carillo noted on Plaintiff’s dental
records that Plaintiff exhibited very poor oral hygiene.
Id.
On October 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed an inmate request
wherein he claimed that he had a gum infection and that
the dentist removed his teeth without the use of an
anesthetic. Exh. E. Plaintiff requested that he be sent
to Lake Butler to have all of his teeth pulled and that
he did not request to see the dentist. Id. The inmate
request was answered by Ms. Glanton. Id. Ms. Glanton
informed Plaintiff that anesthetics are provided for
dental procedures as needed and that a referral to Lake
Butler would be requested as necessary. Id. Inmates are
only referred to Lake Butler for extensive or specialized
treatment. Id. Plaintiff’s condition is not one that
requires specialized treatment and may be adequately
addressed by his treating dentist at Lake C.I. Id.
On January 14, 2009, Plaintiff was given a scaling, which
is a deep cleaning of the teeth along the root of the
teeth into the periodontal area. Exh. E. During that
visit, Dr. Perez-Carillo prescribed Ibuprofen 400 mg to
assist Plaintiff with any pain he might experience as a
result of the cleaning and Doxycycline, a specific
antibiotic used to treat periodontal disease. Id.
On April 16, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a formal grievance
stating that while he was seen several times by the
dentist; he was still not receiving the treatment he felt
he needed. Exh. E. Plaintiff stated he was in constant
pain and needed his teeth pulled. Id. Dr. Perez-Carillo
responded to Plaintiff’s grievance informing him that in
an inmate request[,] dated October 20, 2008, he stated
that he did not request to be seen by the dentist,
instead, that he wanted to be sent to Lake Butler to have
his teeth removed. Id. She also informed Plaintiff that
his grievance was denied as his condition did not
necessitate a referral to Lake Butler. Id.
On April 30, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a grievance appeal
to the Office of the Secretary reiterating his claims
that he was not provided the treatment he felt he needed
-10-
and that his teeth needed to be pulled. Exh. E. On June
24, 2009, Plaintiff’s grievance appeal was denied and
stated that investigation into the matter revealed that
Plaintiff had been placed on a treatment plan in January
2009. Exh. E. The response further stated that it was
the responsibility of his treating dentist to determine
the appropriate treatment regimen. Id. Plaintiff was
instructed to address his concerns with his treating
dentist during his upcoming appointment. He was given the
option to attend sick-call for immediate care if he was
experiencing problems. Id.
On June 16, 2009, Plaintiff was examined by Dr. PerezCarillo, and pursuant to Plaintiff’s treatment plan,
teeth numbers 22 and 23 were extracted.
Exh. E.
Plaintiff was given a pre-treatment rinse and both
topical and local anesthetics prior to the extractions.
Id. Plaintiff tolerated the procedure well and was given
Ibuprofen 200mg for any pain or discomfort. Id.
On June 29, 2009, Dr. Perez-Carillo extracted teeth
numbers 27 and 30 following the same procedure indicated
in paragraph 11.
Exh. E.
During that visit it was
discovered that Plaintiff had developed a cyst underneath
one of his teeth as a result of his poor oral care. Id.
The cyst was removed at that time.
Id.
Plaintiff
tolerated the procedure well and was given Ibuprofen
200mg for any pain or discomfort. Id.
On June 30, 2010, Plaintiff received his yearly
examination.
Exh. E.
On July 15, 2010, Plaintiff
received a periodontal examination, which is the
measuring of the spaces between teeth to ascertain the
progression of periodontal disease. Id.
On July 22, 2010, Dr. Perez-Carillo was transferred to
another Institution and was no longer responsible for
Plaintiff’s dental care. Exh. E.
On September 30,
treatment. Exh. F.
2010,
Plaintiff
refused
dental
Motion at 3-8.
Plaintiff's assertion that he was completely denied any dental
care from October 20, 2008, until August or September 2009, is
-11-
refuted by the record.
this
ten-month
procedures.
Indeed, the record reflects that, during
period,
Plaintiff
underwent
multiple
dental
See generally Exhs. B and C.
Further, assuming arguendo that the facts support a finding
that
Plaintiff's
"rotten
teeth"
or
periodontal
disease
were
objectively serious dental needs, the Court finds no facts in the
record to demonstrate that either Defendant Perez-Carillon or
Defendant Glanton responded to Plaintiff’s dental conditions with
deliberate indifference.
The record before the Court reflects
that, on June 9, 2008, Plaintiff requested to be put on the list to
see a dentist.
Exh. B-2.
In his request for dental treatment,
Plaintiff did not complain that he was experiencing any discomfort
or was in any pain.
Id.
Instead, Plaintiff stated only that, in
his opinion, he required a cleaning, some fillings and had "three
teeth in front on the bottom that might need pulled."
Id.
(emphasis added). In response to his request, Plaintiff was placed
on the dental call-out list, which had a three-month wait time, but
was advised that he could access "sick call" if he developed a
problem prior to his scheduled appointment.
Id.
Approximately
thirty days later, Plaintiff requested to be placed on "sick call,"
and was advised by staff, on July 17, 2008, that there are not
"call outs" for sick call, instead he needed to "show up" for sick
call.
Exh.
B-3.
Sometime
thereafter,
Plaintiff
apparently
presented himself to sick call, as he was examined by Defendant
-12-
Perez-Carillo on July 28, 2008.
Carillo,
after
obtaining
Exh. B-4.
Plaintiff's
Defendant Perez-
consent,
extracted
teeth
numbers 24, 25, and 25, which were "loose due to periodontal
disease."
Exh. B at2, ¶5.
Plaintiff was provided medication for
pain and/or discomfort. Id.
There is no evidence in the record to support Plaintiff's
claim that either Defendant Perez-Carillo or Glanton refused to
provide Plaintiff with dental care or ignored Plaintiff's request
for dental care.
To the contrary, the evidence shows that when
Plaintiff accessed sick call he was seen by the treating dentist
well before his three-month scheduled appointment, was examined,
treated, and provided with extensive follow-up care.
The record further demonstrates that Plaintiff was given a
complete dental examination eight weeks later, during which an
individualized treatment plan to deal with Plaintiff’s periodontal
disease
was
developed
that
cleanings, and extractions.
included
root
planning,
Exh. B-1, B-5.
fillings,
According to the
developed treatment plan, Plaintiff was to be fitted for partial
plates upon the completion of the required dental procedures.
Moreover,
Defendants
performed
a
scaling
of
the
roots
Id.
of
Plaintiff's teeth and prescribed medication to treat Plaintiff's
periodontal disease and ease any pain Plaintiff might experience.
Id.
As evidenced by the record and contrary to the allegations in
the Complaint, Plaintiff was provided with dental appointments,
-13-
examinations, and treatment throughout the ten-month period that he
claims he was denied any dental care.
Consequently, there is
nothing in the record to suggest, yet alone demonstrate, that
Plaintiff was needlessly subjected to pain and suffering.
Nor does the Court find any evidence to support a claim based
upon a delay in medical treatment.
Indeed, the Court finds, at
most, an eleven-day delay between when Plaintiff was told to report
to sick call and when Plaintiff was seen by Defendant PerezCarillo, during which time Plaintiff neither complained that he was
in pain, nor that he required immediate care.
Further, Plaintiff
has not provided any evidence that this eleven-day delay in being
provided with dental services was detrimental to his dental health.
The record, however, supports a finding that Defendant A. PerezCarrillo
“provided
[Plaintiff]
sufficient
services during the relevant time periods.”
dental
staff,
"the
duration
of
time
and
adequate
Exh. E.
between
dental
As noted by
extractions
was
necessary due to the condition of Plaintiff's mouth upon arrival at
Lake C.I."
missing
Exh. B at 7, ¶14.
several
quadrants);
recuperate
teeth,
Plaintiff
while
still
"the
was
Because Plaintiff was already
extractions
given
having
time
the
accessible for chewing and eating."
were
between
other
areas
preformed
(by
extractions
to
of
his
mouth
Id.
Plaintiff's self-assessment that he should be transported to
Lake Butler, or that he was not receiving the dental treatment he
-14-
thought he required is not sufficient to sustain a finding of
deliberate indifference.
(11th
Cir.
Harris v. Thigpen, 914 F.2d 1495, 1501
1991)(citations
omitted)(finding
that
a
"simple
difference of medical opinion between the prison's medical staff
and the inmate as to the latter's diagnosis or course of treatment"
does not support "a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.").
As explained by dental staff, Plaintiff's request for partial
plates is premature because he "has not finished his treatment
plan."
Exh. B at 7, ¶14.
Pursuant to the Florida Department of
Corrections's policy, an inmate is first required to complete a
treatment plan prior to being fitted for any dentures.
Id.
As of
the date of the Motion, Plaintiff still required "two fillings, one
tooth extraction and a final root planning."
Id.
To the extent
Plaintiff complains that he is experiencing any difficulty eating,
Plaintiff can request to receive a soft diet pursuant to the
Department's regulations.
Id.
Based upon the undisputed material facts set forth above, the
Court finds that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant PerezCarrillo or Defendant Glanton violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment
right
by
exhibiting
an
act
of
deliberate
indifference.
In
particular, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff received regular
dental treatment from his arrival at Lake C.I. through September
30, 2010, when he refused further dental treatment. Therefore, the
-15-
Court finds that Defendants Perez-Carrillo and Glanton are entitled
to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim as a matter of law.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1.
Defendants A. Perez-Carrillo and Dimitra Glanton’s Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) is GRANTED and this case is
dismissed with prejudice.
2.
Defendants A. Perez-Carrillo and Dimitra Glanton’s Motion
To Dismiss is DENIED as moot.
3.
The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly,
terminate any pending motions; and close this file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on this 14th day of
April, 2011.
SA: hmk
Copies: All Parties of Record
-16-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?