Wilson v. Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The clerk of the court shall enter judgment on behalf of the defendants. This consolidated action is dismissed and all relief is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 7/19/2011.(Mailed to pro se party Richard Anthony Wilson by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

RICHARD ANTHONY WILSON,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-3239-SAC

vs.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.
RICHARD A. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 08-3286-SAC

vs.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a consolidated civil rights action filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in

forma pauperis.
By its order entered on June 15, 2011 (Doc. 70), the court
notified the parties that it was considering the entry of
summary

judgment

on

behalf

of

defendants

pursuant

to

Rule

56(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff

was granted to and including July 15, 2011, to file a response
and to set forth any ground in opposition to the entry of
summary judgment.
The copy of the order mailed to plaintiff at his last known
address was returned to the clerk of the court as undeliverable
(Doc. 71), and there has been no response to the court’s order.
The court has considered the matter and concludes the entry
of summary judgment on behalf of defendants is appropriate.

The

uncontested record does not establish an arguable claim of a
constitutional violation arising from the dental care provided
to plaintiff during his incarceration.

The record reflects a

considerable course of treatment was offered to plaintiff, and
it does not reasonably suggest he was subjected to deliberate
indifference by any defendant.

See Olson v. Stotts, 9 F.3d

1475, 1477 (10th Cir. 1993)(explaining deliberate indifference
standard for a claim under the Eighth Amendment).

As the court

explained in its earlier order, neither a difference of opinion
between a prisoner and medical staff regarding the treatment
provided nor a claim of malpractice is sufficient to state a
claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment.
F.2d

559,

575

(10th

Cir.

1980);

Perkins

Ramos v. Lamm, 639
v.

Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 811 (10th Cir. 1999).
2

Kan.

Dep’t

of

IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED the clerk of the
court shall enter summary judgment on behalf of the defendants.
This consolidated action is dismissed and all relief is denied.
Copies of this order shall be transmitted to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 19th day of July, 2011.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
United States Senior District Judge

3