JOHNS v. JOHNSON
CORRECTED ORDER ADOPTING 38 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/28/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
WARDEN GLEN JOHNSON, et. al,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-409 (MTT)
United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) because there is no genuine issue
of material fact with regard to whether the Defendants2 were deliberately indifferent to
the Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Doc. 38. The Plaintiff then filed an objection to
the Recommendation. Doc. 40. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has
considered the Plaintiff’s objection and has made a de novo determination of the
portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects. The Court has reviewed
the Recommendation, and the Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of
this Court. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is
GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
In its Order dated August 30, 2017, the Court mistakenly stated that the Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed
without prejudice. That was obviously an error. This Order makes clear that those claims are dismissed
with prejudice. Otherwise, there is no change in the Order.
In his objection, the Plaintiff does not specifically reference Defendant Mason, except broadly implicating
Mason’s involvement by referring to him as “Defendants”. Doc. 40. Because the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that there is no evidence in the record to show Defendant Mason’s awareness of or
involvement with the Plaintiff’s medical care and no further discussion of the issue is necessary, only
Defendant Sachdeva will be addressed in this order.
The Plaintiff first argues that in determining whether to grant the motion for
summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge should have only considered what the
Defendants did between June 5, 2013, when evidence of the Plaintiff’s hip pain was first
recorded, and October 30, 2015, when the Plaintiff filed his lawsuit. Doc. 40 at 4.
Considering any actions taken after the lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiff contends, would
“reward defendants for taking substantial actions to mitigate Plaintiff’s ailments and pain
only after being sued–instead of when plaintiff was actually complaining and not getting
the help he needed.” Id. at 4-5. While it is true that the Magistrate Judge recounted
instances in which the Plaintiff was prescribed pain medications following the filing of
this lawsuit, this does not change the outcome. Doc. 38 at 17. Before the lawsuit was
filed, Dr. Sachdeva continuously monitored and treated the Plaintiff for his hip pain.
Indeed, it was Dr. Sachdeva who ordered an MRI, arranged for an orthopedic surgery,
and recommended that the Plaintiff receive a hip replacement. Doc. 28-4 at 51-52, 75,
108. Clearly, there were delays, apparently administrative for the most part, and
perhaps it could be argued that Dr. Sachdeva should have more aggressively pushed
for approval of the surgery. However, this does not rise to the level of deliberate
indifference. Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to show any genuine issue of material fact as
to whether the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his hip pain prior to the filing
of his lawsuit.3
The Plaintiff also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to consider the documents in the
record titled “Active Meds” as well as the Plaintiff’s affidavit explaining that he complained of his hip pain
to Defendant Sachdeva on June 12, 2012, and on December 20, 2012. Docs. 40 at 5; 32 at 5-6.
However, these documents are not sufficient to create an issue of material fact. The record clearly shows
that Defendant Sachdeva’s response was adequate in light of the known circumstances. Regarding the
list of documents labelled “Active Meds” (Doc. 28-4 at 32, 44, 48), this list is not exclusive and does not
paint a full picture of the actions taken by Defendant Sachdeva. While the Plaintiff is understandably
The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED, and the
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of September, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
concerned about receiving pain medication, Defendant Sachdeva prescribed medication for the Plaintiff’s
hip pain between June of 2013 and November of 2014 that did not appear in the “Active Meds”
documents. See, e.g., Doc. 28-4 at 7, 8, 51, 121-23. Thus, when viewing the record as a whole, the
evidence clearly shows no genuine dispute of any material fact as to whether the Defendants acted with
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?