Nichols v. Burnside

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 27 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Burnside's Motion to Dismiss for abuse of process is DENIED. Burnside's Motion to Dismiss Nichols' Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims is DENIED. Nichols' claims against Burnside in his official capacity are DISMISSED. Nichols' request for reasonable attorneys fees is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 9/4/2012. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

JOHNNY CONNER NICHOLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. EDWARD HALE BURNSIDE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-116 (MTT)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 27). The Plaintiff, Johnny Nichols, alleges
deliberate indifference to his medical needs against the Defendant, Dr. Edward
Burnside, in both his individual and official capacities. (Doc. 1). Burnside has moved to
dismiss Nichols’ claims, asserting abuse of process, failure to state a claim, and
qualified immunity arguments. (Doc. 16). The Magistrate Judge has reviewed
Burnside’s Motion to Dismiss and recommends denial of the motion in regard to claims
against Burnside in his individual capacity and dismissal of the claims against him in his
official capacity. Both parties have objected to the Recommendation. (Docs. 30, 33).
Burnside has specifically objected to the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of his failure to
state a claim and qualified immunity arguments.1 (Doc. 30).

1
Burnside appears to have abandoned his abuse of process argument, noting that it relied on a
false – but inadvertent – allegation of Nichols’ involvement in a prior court case.

In regard to the argument that Nichols failed to state a claim, Burnside suggests
that Nichols does not meet the deliberate indifference standard because Nichols merely
disagrees with the level and type of medical care he received. However, as the
Magistrate Judge rightly points out, “Plaintiff alleges more than a mere difference in
medical opinion. Plaintiff’s allegations, if proven, could demonstrate an unconstitutional
delay in the provision of medical care and attention during his confinement.” (Doc. 27).
It is true that Nichols eventually must show he had a serious medical need,
Burnside’s deliberate indifference to that need, and that Burnside’s indifference caused
his injury. Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2009). What’s
more, he will have to show that Burnside’s alleged indifference amounted to something
more than accidental inadequacy, negligence, or medical malpractice. Taylor v. Adams,
221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000). However, “‘deliberate indifference may be
established by…a decision to take an easier but less efficacious course of treatment....
Moreover, [w]hen the need for treatment is obvious, medical care which is so cursory as
to amount to no treatment at all may amount to deliberate indifference.’” Brown v.
Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d
1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999)).
At this stage of the litigation, without the benefit of discovery or even an Answer
from Burnside, it is not yet possible to assess the exact nature of Nichols’ medical need
or the reason for which his medical care was delayed. Specifically, it is not clear why,
taking Nichols’ allegations as true, Burnside limited Nichols’ access to an MRI and
deprived him of pain medication for nearly three months between July and October
-2-

2010. Nichols has alleged that he suffered from a debilitating back injury, that Burnside
was aware of this injury, and that Burnside deprived him of means to adequately relieve
this injury by not prescribing an appropriate treatment. This is sufficient to survive
Burnside’s Motion to Dismiss. Similarly, with respect to Burnside’s qualified immunity
argument, Nichols has alleged a claim that, if later proven, could amount to deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. As the Magistrate Judge notes, clearly established
federal law provides that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical care violates the
Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 27). Consequently, Burnside would not be entitled to
qualified immunity at this time.
Having considered both parties’ objections, and following a de novo review of the
portions of the Recommendation objected to, the Recommendation is adopted and
made the order of this Court. Burnside’s Motion to Dismiss for abuse of process is
DENIED. Burnside’s Motion to Dismiss Nichols’ Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claims is DENIED. Nichols’ claims against Burnside in his official capacity
are DISMISSED. Nichols’ request for reasonable attorney’s fees is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of September, 2012.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. 

-3-