Scott v. Siddiqui et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 34 ), OVERRULES Scott's objections (Doc. 36 ), and DENIES Scott's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6 .) Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/12/2018. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-01127-JPG-SCW

DR. SIDDIQUI, DR. RITZ, and WEXFORD
HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
34) of Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams with regard to the plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction. (Doc. 6.) The Court may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—
the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the Report to which
objections are made. Id. “If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court
judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
This is a deliberate indifference case arising from the alleged failure by the defendants to
provide medical care for the plaintiff Christopher Scott’s knee injury. (See Docs. 1, 5.)
Basically, Scott hurt his knee walking through the prison yard, and although he has supposedly
received several forms of treatment and has refused certain medication, he wants the Court to
enter a preliminary injunction against the defendants “to stop ordering alternative care treatment
to prisoners [and] provide…necessary medical care…[and] stop ordering ineffective care to
save…costs.” (Doc. 1, p. 22.) Magistrate Judge Williams has entered a thorough Report

1

recommending that the Court deny the preliminary injunction for numerous reasons, including
(1) the requested relief is vague and broad, which runs afoul of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act’s requirement that requested relief be narrowly drawn; (2) the relief would violate Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which requires a Court to describe the terms of an injunction
“specifically” and in “reasonable detail”; and (3) Scott has not demonstrated that he would be
likely to win on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim—a pre-requisite to obtain injunctive
relief. Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d 537, 546 (7th Cir. 2010).
Scott has filed an objection to the Report. (Doc. 36.) That document enumerates 13
individual objections targeted at a cavalcade of items. The Court has conducted a de novo review
of the portions of the Report to which Scott made his objections and finds as follows:
First, Scott points out a factual error in the Report: it states “Plaintiff received another xray in October 2017 which showed no mild osteoarthritis of the knee joint, but no acute bony
fracture or dislocation.” (Doc. 34, p. 4.) (emphasis added). Scott argues that the x-ray did show
mild osteoarthritis, and thus the entire Report is tainted by this factual error. This argument goes
too far, however, considering the word “no” appears to be a typo given the phrasing and nature
of both the sentence in question and the remainder of the Report. Plaintiff also argues that the
osteoarthritis diagnosis is suspect because that condition only occurs in “people over the age of
60,” while Scott is only 37. But that objection is neither credible nor supported by any evidence.
Second, Scott argues that he was never offered a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug,
while the Report and one of the defendants in the case claim otherwise. Scott instead says that he
was offered ibuprofen, even though he admits to refusing it multiple times. This objection fails
because ibuprofen is, in fact, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. See WEBMD, OTC Pain
Relief:

Understanding

NSAIDs,

https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/pain-

2

relievers-nsaids (last accessed June 4, 2018).
Next, objections 3–7 are frivolous and haphazard attempts to attack the factual findings in
the Report. For example, one objection states that the Court cannot rely on defendant Dr. Ritz’s
declaration in this case because he did not assess Scott in person, even though he participated in
several collegial reviews of the record with other doctors. (Doc. 36, p. 12.) Another objection
states, without evidence, that the x-ray machine in question is outdated and does “not show
pathologic injuries.” (Doc. 36, p. 13.) Yet another objection is to the time when Scott was sent to
physical therapy, and even though the defendants admit that the timetable is unclear, that dispute
is irrelevant to the instant motion. (Id. at p. 14.)
The remaining objections are frivolous attacks on legal findings and analysis in the
Report. Objections 8 and 11 say that Magistrate Judge Williams incorrectly found that Scott has
not demonstrated that he would be likely to win on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim.
(Id. at 15, 21.) Scott thinks this is wrong simply because if the doctors had ordered an MRI, they
would have found an injury. But that argument begs the question and does not demonstrate that
Scott is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Objection 9 first re-states the Report’s language that
“Plaintiff is entitled only to adequate care—not to demand specific care,” and then Scott argues
that he is not seeking specific care. But Scott then contradicts himself by demanding an MRI.
(Id. at 16.) Objections 10, 12, and 13 are all disagreements to the type of medical care that Scott
received, but prisoners do not enjoy an Eighth Amendment right to choose the type of medical
care that they receive so long as the care that they are provided is not blatantly inappropriate.
Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 2003); Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th
Cir. 2014).
CONCLUSION

3

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:


ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 34);



OVERRULES Scott’s objections (Doc. 36); and



DENIES Scott’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 6.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: JUNE 12, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

4