CARRIN v. STRONG et al

Filing 146

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The report and recommendation, ECF No. 130 , is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff's objections, as this Court's opinion. Defendant Rolston's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 111 , is GRANTED. This Court does not direct entry of partial judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 3/26/2024. (baf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
SANDRA GAIL CARRIN,
as the Personal Representative of
the Estate of RAYMOND MARSHALL
CARRIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 4:21cv486-MW/MAF

SHAUNA MARIE SMILEDGE,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Third
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 130, and has also reviewed de novo
Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 141.
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant Rolston’s motion for
summary judgment because there is no genuine dispute as to whether Defendant
Rolston was responsible for any delay in treating Mr. Carrin’s serious medical
condition. Instead, the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff
demonstrate that Defendant Rolston provided medical care to Mr. Carrin within the
limits of his authorization every time he saw Mr. Carrin for treatment, and that he

made further recommendations for Dr. Jiminez and Dr. Li to cosign or review Mr.
Carrin’s medical records after those encounters.
Plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation, arguing three points that
deserve mention here. First, Plaintiff argues that the record includes a medical note
that alludes to a prior encounter between Mr. Carrin and Defendant Rolston that was
not documented, and, according to Plaintiff, raises questions as to whether
Defendant Rolston failed to document other clinical encounters to conceal his
alleged deliberate indifference. See ECF No. 141 at 3 (citing ECF No. 113 at 35 and
RMSJ-1 at 051). But Plaintiff’s record cite for this assertion does not include any
such reference to an undocumented clinical encounter a month prior to the January
9, 2019 encounter. See ECF No. 113-1 at 52 (RMSJ-1 at 051). And even if it did,
Plaintiff’s argument depends entirely on unfounded speculation and not a reasonable
inference based on the facts construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s second argument is that the report and recommendation “ignores
the Affidavit of Dale E. Folsom,” which would permit the reasonable inference that
Mr. Carrin’s serious medical condition would have been obvious to Defendant
Rolston and that he was deliberately indifferent to it. Not so. Upon review, the report
and recommendation adequately addresses Mr. Folsom’s affidavit and ultimately
concludes that the record does not permit a reasonable inference that Defendant
Rolston was responsible for the undisputed delay in treating Mr. Carrin’s hepatitis
2

or that Defendant Rolston ignored Mr. Carrin’s requests for treatment. Nobody
disputes that Defendant Rolston was aware of Mr. Carrin’s serious medical
condition, and Mr. Folsom’s affidavit fails to create any genuine dispute as to
whether Defendant Rolston was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Carrin’s medical
needs.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Rolston’s alleged deliberate
indifference is further “bolstered by the sworn testimony of Dorina Paynter,” a nurse
at the Federal Correctional Institution who responded to an apparent medical
emergency involving Mr. Carrin in July 2019. See ECF No. 141 at 5. Nurse Paynter
assessed Mr. Carrin and determined it was necessary to call 911 and have EMS get
him to a hospital. See ECF No. 113-7 at 5–6. But the undisputed fact that Nurse
Paynter determined that Mr. Carrin required emergency care in July 2019 does not
create a dispute of fact as to whether Defendant Rolston was deliberately indifferent
to Mr. Carrin’s serious medical needs or that on other occasions failed to secure or
provide necessary emergency medical treatment.
Instead, the record demonstrates, without genuine dispute, that Defendant
Rolston properly assessed and treated Mr. Carrin within the limits of his medical
authorization and followed up with recommendations for Mr. Carrin’s treating
physicians to review or cosign his medical records following encounters with Mr.
Carrin. This would be a different case if there was record evidence demonstrating
3

that Defendant Rolston, like Nurse Paynter, discovered Mr. Carrin in need of
emergency care but, unlike Nurse Paynter, decided to defer taking action until a
doctor could see Mr. Carrin later. But no evidence in this record suggests that
Defendant Rolston failed to respond to a medical emergency.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 130, is accepted and adopted,
over Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Defendant Rolston’s motion for
summary judgment, ECF No. 111, is GRANTED. This Court does not direct entry
of partial judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).
SO ORDERED on March 26, 2024.
s/Mark E. Walker
____
Chief United States District Judge

4