Lattimore v. Coleman et al

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 32 Motion to Accept Medical Records in Support of Opposing Affidavit.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CONTRELL LATTIMORE (#327289),
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-14171
JUDGE GERALD E. ROSEN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES

Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR, et al.,
Defendants,
/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S NOVEMBER 29, 2011 MOTION (Doc. Ent. 32) TO
ACCEPT MEDICAL RECORDS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSING AFFIDAVIT (Doc. Ent.
28 at 9-21) TO DEFENDANTS’ OCTOBER 13, 2011 MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Doc. Ent. 23)
A.

Background
Contrell Lattimore (#327289) is currently incarcerated at St. Louis Correctional Facility

(SLF). On October 19, 2010, while incarcerated at SLF, Lattimore filed this pro se prisoner civil
rights complaint. Doc. Ent. 1 at 1-10. The facts underlying plaintiff’s complaint stem from his
November 9, 2009 arrest and his subsequent treatment for a broken finger. Doc. Ent. 1 at 3, 5-7.1
There are eight (8) named defendants: WCJ Medical Administrator; Nurses Moore, Major,
Coleman and Jones; Detroit Police Department (DPD) Sgt. Geraldine Young; and DPD Officers

1

Lattimore was sentenced on April 16, 2010 for the November 9, 2009 offenses of unlawful
imprisonment (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.349b) and assault with intent to commit murder (Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.83). See www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender Search;” Case No. 0929212-01 (Wayne County). On April 20, 2010, he was transferred from the Wayne County Jail
(WCJ) to a Jackson, Michigan prison. Doc. Ent. 1 at 3, 7; Doc. Ent. 28 at 41 (WCJ System History
of Inmate Report).

Jackson and Rodak. Plaintiff also names as defendants John and Jane Does. Doc. Ent. 1 at 8-10,
Doc. Ent. 6.
On February 18, 2011, Judge Rosen referred this case to me to conduct all pretrial
proceedings. Doc. Ent. 13. Since then, I have entered an order (Doc. Ent. 16) granting
defendants Rodak and Young’s motion for leave to take deposition (Doc. Ent. 12); an order (Doc.
Ent. 18) setting the discovery cutoff for September 13, 2011 and the dispositive motion cutoff for
October 13, 2011; an order (Doc. Ent. 21) denying without prejudice plaintiff’s August 19, 2011
motion
to appoint counsel (Doc. Ent. 19);2 and an order (Doc. Ent. 30) denying as moot plaintiff’s motion
for extension of time (Doc. Ent. 26).
B.

Pending Dispositive Motions

1.

On September 30, 2011, defendants Rodak, Jackson and Young (“the City of Detroit

defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. Ent. 20. Specifically, they address
plaintiff’s medical treatment claim. Doc. Ent. 20 at 9-12; Doc. Ent. 20-2 (Transcript of plaintiff’s
June 23, 2011 deposition).3
On November 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a response. Doc. Ent. 27 at 1-7. See also Doc. Ent.
28 at 22-27 (Opposing Affidavit); Doc. Ent. 28 at 42-48 (Interrogatories to Rodak, Jackson and
Young); Doc. Ent. 28-1 at 3-7 (Supporting Affidavit).

2

On November 21, 2011, Judge Rosen entered an order (Doc. Ent. 31) overruling plaintiff’s
objection (Doc. Ent. 25) and affirming my order (Doc. Ent. 21).
3

On October 7, 2011, I entered an order which, in part, set the deadline for plaintiff’s
response for November 15, 2011. Doc. Ent. 21. My October 12, 2011 order set plaintiff’s response
deadline for November 2, 2011. Doc. Ent. 22.
2

2.

On October 13, 2011, defendants Coleman, Jones, Moore, Major and the Wayne County

Jail Administrator (“the Wayne County defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc.
Ent. 23. Specifically, they argue (I) “Plaintiff fails to show personal involvement of defendant
Wayne County Jail Medical Administrator, as a supervisor for the Wayne County Medical Staff,
in order to create a genuine issue of material fact as required for a civil rights claim to survive
summary judgment[;]” (II) “There is no genuine issue of material fact as to plaintiff’s Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment claims because there is no evidence that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently
serious’ not that the officials acted with deliberate indifference[;]” and (III) “Qualified immunity
bars all plaintiff’s claims against defendant[s] Coleman, Jones, Moore, Major, and the Jail
Medical Administrator[.]” Doc. Ent. 23 at 12-16; see also Doc. Ent. 23-2 (plaintiff’s June 23,
2011 deposition transcript), Doc. Ent. 23-3 (certified jail medical records); Doc. Ent. 23-1 (Index
of Exhibits).4
On November 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a response. Doc. Ent. 28 at 1-8, Doc. Ent. 28 at 9-21
(Opposing Affidavit); Doc. Ent. 28 at 28-32 (Excerpt of March 30, 2010 Jury Trial Transcript
[Exhibit A]); Doc. Ent. 28 at 33-36 (Excerpt of March 9, 2011 Post Conviction [Exhibit B]); Doc.
Ent. 28 at 37-40 (Excerpt of March 31, 2010 Jury Trial Transcript [Exhibit C]); Doc. Ent. 28 at 41
(Excerpt from Lattimore’s WCJ System History of Inmate Report [Exhibit D]); Doc. Ent. 28 at
49-50 & Doc. Ent. 28-1 at 1-2 (Interrogatories to the WCJ Medical Administrator).5
C.

Discussion

4

On October 14, 2011, I entered an order requiring plaintiff to file a response on or before
November 2, 2011. Doc. Ent. 24.
5

See also Doc. Ent. 29 (Certificate of Mailing).
3

Currently before the Court is plaintiff’s November 29, 2011 motion (Doc. Ent. 32) to
accept medical records in support of his October 28, 2011 opposing affidavit (Doc. Ent. 28 at 921) to defendants’ October 13, 2011 motion for summary judgment (Doc. Ent. 23). Attached to
plaintiff’s motion (Doc. Ent. 32 at 1-3) are MDOC Medical Records (Doc. Ent. 32 at 4-24).
Plaintiff explains that his November 2, 2011 response (Doc. Ent. 28 at 1-8) was not
accompanied by his medical records; however, he has now received “copies of his medical
records to prove key parts of his claim[.]” Doc. Ent. 32 at 2 ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff contends that the
medical records will support portions of his opposing affidavit (Doc. Ent. 28 at 9-21, ¶¶ 7-12 &
13), as well as his supporting affidavit (Doc. Ent. 28-1 at 3-7). Doc. Ent. 32 at 2 ¶¶ 5, 6.
D.

Order
Accordingly, plaintiff’s November 29, 2011 motion (Doc. Ent. 32) to accept medical

records in support of his response to defendants’ October 13, 2011 dispositive motion is
GRANTED. The Court will consider plaintiff’s medical records in its disposition of defendants’
October 13, 2011 dispositive motion (Doc. Ent. 20).6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The attention of the parties is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides a period of
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this order within which to file objections
for consideration by the district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: March 23, 2012

s/Paul J. Komives
PAUL J. KOMIVES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Each of defendants’ dispositive motions (Doc. Entries 20 and 23) will be addressed under
separate cover.
4

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record by electronic
and/or U.S. mail on March 25, 2012.

s/Michael Williams
Relief Case Manager for the Honorable Paul J.
Komives

5