Cuckovic v. Randolph et al
Filing
104
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Nurse Craft's motion for summary judgment 95 ; DENIES Cuckovic's motion opposing summary judgment 100 ; and DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Nurse Reola Craft and against Borislav Cuckovic and to close this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 2/7/2024. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ash)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BORISLAV CUCKOVIC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-815-MGG
MS. CRAFT,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Borislav Cuckovic, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding in this case against
Nurse Reola Craft “in her individual capacity, for compensatory and punitive damages
for failing to provide him constitutionally adequate care during the February 20, 2020,
sick call[.]” ECF 7. Specifically, Cuckovic asserted in his complaint that Nurse Craft
refused to provide him medication for tooth pain during a February 20, 2020, sick call
visit. Nurse Craft filed an authorized second motion for summary judgment, arguing
she was misidentified as the nurse who treated Cuckovic during the February 20 sick
call. ECF 95. Cuckovic filed a motion in response, and Nurse Craft filed a reply. ECF
100, 102. The summary judgment motion is now fully briefed and ripe for ruling.
Nurse Craft provides evidence showing the following facts: Cuckovic’s medical
records indicate he was treated by Nurse Rhonda Adkins, not Nurse Craft, during the
February 20 sick call. ECF 95-2. Nurse Craft attests she was not the provider who saw
Cuckovic at the February 20 sick call, and was not involved in creating the medical
record related to that visit. ECF 95-3 at 2-3. In fact, the software at the facility would
have made it impossible for her to have used Nurse Adkins’ login information to chart
or create medical records. Id. at 3. At his deposition, Cuckovic described the nurse who
treated him at the February 20 sick call as a white woman with short hair, between 38
and 40 years’ old, and only a “tiny bit shorter” than six feet tall. ECF 95-1 at 41-42. This
description does not match Nurse Craft’s characteristics, as she is a 69-year-old African
American woman who is approximately 5 ft. 7 in. tall. ECF 95-3 at 3-4, 8-9.
In his response, Cuckovic concedes he incorrectly identified Nurse Craft as the
nurse who treated him during the February 20 sick call. ECF 100 at 2. The court
therefore accepts that as undisputed. Nevertheless, Cuckovic argues he should still be
allowed to proceed to trial against Nurse Craft because she saw him regarding his tooth
pain on other occasions. Id. at 1-3. But Cuckovic is proceeding against Nurse Craft only
“for failing to provide him constitutionally adequate care during the February 20, 2020,
sick call,” and is not proceeding against Nurse Craft for failing to provide
constitutionally adequate care on any other occasion. ECF 7; see Speer v. Rand McNally &
Co., 123 F.3d 658, 665 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding a party may not amend his complaint
through his response to a summary judgment motion). Therefore, because the
undisputed evidence shows Nurse Craft was not personally involved in providing
Cuckovic constitutionally inadequate medical care during the February 20 sick call,
summary judgment is warranted in her favor. See Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864,
869 (7th Cir. 1983) (“Section 1983 creates a cause of action based upon personal liability
and predicated upon fault,” and “[a]n individual cannot be held liable in a § 1983 action
unless [s]he caused or participated in an alleged constitutional deprivation.”).
2
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Nurse Craft’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 95);
(2) DENIES Cuckovic’s motion opposing summary judgment (ECF 100); and
(3) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Nurse Reola Craft and
against Borislav Cuckovic and to close this action.
SO ORDERED on February 7, 2024
s/ Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
Michael G. Gotsch, Sr.
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?