Horne v. Nevil et al

Filing 60

ORDER overruling Staten's objections, adopting 57 Report and Recommendations, denying Motions to Dismiss. The Court grants in part and denies in part 34 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court grants the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Nevil, but denies the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Staten. The Court grants 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. Furthermore, the Court denies Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis the Court's decision as to Defendant Nevil's and Defendant Driggers' Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/27/2017. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

SHANNON LABRANCE HORNE,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:15-cv-44

GARRETT NEVIL; KAYE DRIGGERS; and
JOHN STATEN,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are Defendant Staten's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 59). After an independent and de novo review of the entire
record, the undersigned concurs with the March 7, 2017, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 57).

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of the Court.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious needs when they refused to provide him with antiviral
medication to treat his Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV").

(Doc. 1.)

The Court

conducted the requisite frivolity review, (doc. 14), and Defendants then filed Motions to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motions for Summary Judgment, (docs. 34, 36), to which Plaintiff

filed a Response, (doc. 42). Subsequently, the Court invited supplemental briefing as to the issue
of Plaintiff s exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc. 47.) Defendants filed supplemental

memorandums and Plaintiff filed a Response, to which Defendants Replied. (Docs. 48-50, 52,

54.) On March 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, grant Defendants' Nevil and Driggers' Motions for Summary Judgment, and
deny Defendant Staten's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 57.)
DISCUSSION

Defendant Staten filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the
Court deny Defendant Staten's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 59.) Defendant Staten
contends that: 1) there is insufficient evidence to establish that Defendant Staten's conduct

resulted in injury to Plaintiff; 2) there is insufficient evidence to establish that Defendant Staten

deliberately disregarded a serious medical need; and 3) Plaintiff was required to exhaust his
administrative remedies. (Id at pp. 3-10.) The Court addresses each of these Objections in turn.
I.

Whether Defendant Staten's Conduct Resulted in Injury to Plaintiff

Defendant Staten objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that, at least "at this stage of
the litigation, it appears that Plaintiff was directly injured by [Defendant Staten's] failure to

provide Plaintiff with his necessary antiviral medication."

(Doc. 57, p. 20; Doc. 59, p. 3.)

Defendant Staten argues that Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient "verifying medical evidence" to

support his claims that his viral load increased and that he suffered night sweats, vomiting, and
diarrhea. (Doc. 59, p. 3.)

However, as the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff did in fact provide a copy of his

medical history to support his allegations. (Doc. 57, p. 20; Doc. 42-3, p. 20.) In his medical

report, medical staff noted that Plaintiff was "without his HIV medications for 25 days" and
reported "night sweats . . . vomiting at night that is mostly yellowish in content, nonbilious and

nonbloody . . . [and] occasional watery diarrhea." (Doc. 42-3, p. 20.) Furthermore, this medical

history report includes Plaintiffs viral load of 341 at the time the exam was conducted. (Id.)

Plaintiffs blood results from January 27, 2015 reveal that his prior viral load—when he was still
regularly taking his antiviral medication—was less than 20. (Doc. 36-2, p. 32.) Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that the record contained sufficient evidence to create

a question of fact as to whether Plaintiff was injured as a result of Defendant Staten's conduct.

Defendant further argues that this medical history was "made in January 2016, eleven
months after the events at issue in this lawsuit" and thus, not appropriate evidence linking

Plaintiffs injury to the delay.l (Doc. 59, p. 4 (emphasis in original).) It is true that the report
was printed in January of 2016 and possibly provided in conjunction with a medical visit that

also occurred in January of 2016. However, the section upon which the Magistrate Judge relied

is directly labeled "PMHx" or Past Medical History.

Family Medicine Reference,

http://www.fammedref.org/glossary (last visitedMar. 20, 2017). Furthermore, althoughundated,
the notes indicate that the relevant entry was made soon after the alleged events giving rise to

this lawsuit. Specifically, the medical notes state that Plaintiff was present at the clinic for "reenrollment and treatment evaluation. He was transferred to Bulloch County for court hearings."

(Doc. 42-3, p. 20.) Thus, the Magistrate Judge did not err in relying on this past medical history.
II.

Whether Defendant Staten Deliberately Disregarded Plaintiffs Serious Medical
Need

Defendant Staten also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining that there is
an issue of fact as to whether Defendant Staten deliberately disregarded Plaintiffs serious

medical need. (Doc. 59, p. 8.) Specifically, Defendant takes issue with the Magistrate Judge's
inference that Defendant Staten did not approve Plaintiffs medication because it was too

expensive or because Plaintiff would be transferred back to state custody. (Id) However,
1 Defendant also appears to argue that Plaintiffs statements made to medical personnel and documented
in his medical record are not sufficient "verifying medical evidence" and are simply conclusory

statements. (Doc. 59, pp. 4-6.) However, the Court notes that such evidence would ordinarily be
considered admissible hearsay evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(4). F.R.E. 803(4).

Defendant's Objections only highlight what the Magistrate Judge ultimately determined, that the
record contains sufficient evidence to create a dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant
Staten acted with more than gross negligence in denying Plaintiffs medication.

Defendant

Staten's reason for the delay is but one prong of the gross negligence analysis. As the record
stands, there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant Staten's reason for denying
Plaintiff his antiviral medication was due to cost, transfer back to state custody, or something

else altogether. Accordingly, the Court cannot decide as a matter of law that Defendant Staten
did not act with more than gross negligence in denying Plaintiff medical treatment.
III.

Whether Plaintiff Exhausted his Available Administrative Remedies

Defendant Staten simply reiterates his arguments regarding Plaintiffs exhaustion of

administrative remedies previously presented in his Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative,

Motion for Summary Judgment, and his supplemental memorandums. The Magistrate Judge

adequately addressed these contentions, and the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's
analysis.
CONCLUSION

The Court OVERRULES Defendant Staten's Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of the Court.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

However, the Court

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Nevil and Staten's Motion for

Summary Judgment, (doc. 34). Specifically, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary

Judgment as to Defendant Nevil, but DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Defendant Staten.

The Court also GRANTS Defendant Driggers' Motion for Summary

Judgment, (doc. 36). Furthermore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma

pauperis the Court's decision as to Defendant Nevil's and Defendant Driggers' Motions for
Summary Judgment.

SO ORDERED, this <3l£ day ofMarch, 2017.

HONORA^TJE J. RANDAL HALL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RJTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA