GLADU v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al

Filing 543

ORDER dismissing as moot 522 Motion for Judicial Notice; dismissing as moot 523 Motion to Clarify His Request for Judicial Notice of Medical Treatises; and, dismissing as moot 531 Motion to Hold Proceedings. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
NICHOLAS A. GLADU,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

2:15-cv-00384-JAW

ORDER ON REMAINING MOTIONS
With the entry of judgment in favor of the Defendants, the Plaintiff’s
prejudgment motions are moot. As the Plaintiff is acting pro se, the Court explains
why.
I.

BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision

on the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this suit, in which Nicholas
Gladu challenges the decisions of correctional staff and medical providers concerning
his bilateral hip pain. Recommended Decision of Defs.’ Mots. for Summ. J. and Order
on Pl.’s Record-Related Mots. (ECF No. 512) (Recommended Decision). On February
14, 2018, the Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s recommended decision and
granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Order Affirming the

Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 541). Contemporaneously,
the Court dismissed as moot Mr. Gladu’s motion to exclude evidence. Order on
Objection to Order on Mot. to Exclude Evid. (ECF No. 540). On February 15, 2018,

judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants and against Mr. Gladu in
accordance with the earlier order.

J. (ECF No. 542). There are three motions

remaining, which the Court now dismisses as moot for reasons it has described in
earlier orders and reiterates below.
II.

DISCUSSION
On January 5, 2018, Mr. Gladu filed a motion requesting the Court take

judicial notice of an exhibit he had previously submitted consisting of lab blood test
results from 2012, which he contends indicate the presence of a serious underlying
medical condition the Defendants have ignored. Pl.’s Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF
No. 522); Additional Evid. Attach. 1 at 5-6 (ECF No. 472). On the same day, Mr.
Gladu also filed a motion seeking to clarify that when he previously moved the Court
to take judicial notice of medical treatises, he intended the Court to consider the
sections of those treatises pertaining to certain examination, laboratory, and medical
imaging practices to establish the relevant standard of care. Pl.’s Motion to Clarify
His Request for Judicial Notice of Medical Treatises (ECF No. 523). On January 26,
2018, the Correct Care Solutions Defendants filed a response to both motions. Defs.
Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy
Riebe’s Response to Plantiff’s Mot. for Judicial Notice and Mot. to Clarify Pl.’s Request
for Judicial Notice of Medical Treatises (ECF No. 530).
Mr. Gladu is correct that the lab results indicated somewhat above average
blood phosphorus levels, but there is no indication the medical providers ignored this
information, and a single elevated blood chemistry indicator might suggest something

2

of significance, or nothing at all, depending on the numerous other tests and relevant
data the medical providers considered. The Defendants are correct that the relevant
sections of medical treatises and the sophisticated interpretation of blood chemistry
lab results are matters of medical expertise, not amenable to judicial notice. See id.
at 2-3. In any event, these motions make no difference in the outcome of this case for
the same reasons the Magistrate Judge explained: “Plaintiff’s diagnosis is the subject
of medical opinion and is not a fact that is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute’ as
contemplated by Federal Rule of Evidence 201.” Recommended Decision at 2-3.
On January 29, 2018, Mr. Gladu filed a motion requesting the Court to hold a
hearing to assess the merit of his recent claim of spoliation. Pl.’s Motion to Hold
Proceedings (ECF No. 531). In Mr. Gladu’s objection to the recommended decision on
summary judgment, he raised the possibility that the Defendants have hidden
evidence of a recent x-ray comparison that indicates more degenerative spinal
changes because the results would be unfavorable to the Defendants’ position. Pl.’s
Objection to Recommended Decision at 2-3 (ECF No. 520). Mr. Gladu contends that
this would present a viable claim for spoliation of evidence and bar summary
judgment. Id. (citing Pelletier v. Magnusson, 195 F. Supp. 2d 214, 233-37 (D. Me.
2002)). Mr. Gladu apparently bases his spoliation argument on representations of
customer service representatives from an imaging company, Mobilex USA. Id.
These spoliation arguments do not survive summary judgment. The case Mr.
Gladu cites is instructive. In Pelletier, there was undisputed evidence regarding the
genesis and prior existence of key pieces of missing evidence. 195 F. Supp. 2d at 233-

3

34. Here, in contrast, Mr. Gladu presents nothing more than hearsay raising the
possibility that the relevant evidence ever existed. Furthermore, as the Court has
similarly explained regarding expert testimony, hearings require considerable time
and expense, which is why they are not needed in these circumstances, where the
evidence of spoliation is paper-thin. See Order Affirming the Recommended Decision
of the Magistrate Judge at 16-17 (ECF No. 541).
III.

CONCLUSION
Nicholas A. Gladu’s remaining motions do not impact the outcome of the

summary judgment analysis, and they are moot now that judgment has issued.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Notice
(ECF No. 522), Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify His Request for Judicial Notice of Medical
Treatises (ECF No. 523), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Hold Proceedings (ECF No. 531).
SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of February, 2018

4