Blank v. Michigan Department of Corrections Bureau of Healthcare Services et al

Filing 43

OPINION & ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation and granting deft's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment. 37 Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR BLANK,
Case No. 14-13235
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
CORIZON HEALTHCARE OF MICHIGAN,
KEITH PAPENDICK, TERRENCE
WHITEMAN, and CHARLES JAMSEN,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [37]
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [24]
This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation. (Dkt. 37.) The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 24.) Plaintiff filed objections to the report and
recommendation and Defendants filed a response to the objections. (Dkt. 39, 40.) Having
reviewed the record and conducted a de novo review of those parts of the report and
recommendation to which specific objections have been filed, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s objections and ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is therefore GRANTED and
this case is DISMISSED.
I.

Background
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this pro se suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment. (Dkt. 6.) As alleged, Plaintiff has been diagnosed with several heart

conditions, including atrial fibrillation. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff argues that by delaying and
denying him permission to have an ablation procedure, Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical need. (Id. at ¶ 56.)
II.

Analysis
To establish a claim of deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show (1) the existence

of a “sufficiently serious” medical need and (2) that the official being sued knew of and
disregarded substantial risk to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
834-37 (1994). Having assumed Plaintiff met the first prong, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that “Plaintiff’s disagreement with his doctors’ decisions regarding the manner
in which his heart condition was treated falls far short of deliberate indifference to his
medical needs.” (Dkt. 37, at 11.) Plaintiff makes four objections to the report and
recommendation. The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the portions of the
report and recommendation to which Plaintiff specifically objects pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion.
Plaintiff’s first objection is without merit. The Magistrate Judge’s decision to assume
that Plaintiff’s medical condition was sufficiently serious for purposes of the motion was not,
as Plaintiff argues, an attempt to “trivialize Plaintiff’s heart condition” in any way. (Dkt. 39,
at 1-2.) Plaintiff’s second objection appears to take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s
finding that the complaint “acknowledges that [Plaintiff’s] claim is one based on a
disagreement with the method of treatment.” (Id. at 2-3.) This objection also fails. The
complaint states that Defendants “provid[ed] some measure of care” and further details all
the care Plaintiff received since his symptoms started in 2013. (Dkt. 6, at ¶¶ 2-55.) As such,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that, as acknowledged in his
2

complaint, Plaintiff’s claim is based on a disagreement with the method of treatment, rather
than a complete denial of medical care.
Plaintiff, in his third and fourth objections, takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusion that “Plaintiff’s allegations alone show that he was given extraordinarily prompt
and thorough medical care, his requests were catered to on nearly every occasion, and that
the only medical treatment he desired but did not receive was the ablation.” (Dkt. 39, at 45.) Plaintiff further objects to the conclusion that “[n]one of Plaintiff’s many doctors
recommended ablation other than, as Plaintiff alleged, a Doctor Ricky Coleman who was
not one of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.” (Id.) While Plaintiff alleges multiple physicians
discussed the possibility of ablation or recommended that Plaintiff be evaluated for an
ablation, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the only doctor who
allegedly recommended Plaintiff have the procedure was Dr. Coleman. (See, e.g., Dkt. 6,
at ¶ 27.) Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that, even viewing the facts
in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff received a significant amount of medical care
since the alleged symptoms began in 2013. By this Court’s count, the amended complaint
alone alleges Plaintiff was seen, evaluated, or treated by nearly twenty physicians (primarily
cardiologists), received a variety of testing and procedures, and was prescribed several
medications. (Dkt. 6, at ¶¶ 4-47.) When a prisoner has received treatment but disputes the
adequacy of the treatment, as the report and recommendation notes, courts are “reluctant
to second guess medical judgments.” (Dkt. 37, at 5.) While Plaintiff is correct that “prison
officials may not entirely insulate themselves from liability under § 1983 simply by providing
some measure of treatment” (Dkt. 39, at 14), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that the treatment here, as alleged by Plaintiff, falls far short of a constitutional violation.
3

Finally, in his recently-filed letter, Plaintiff contends he was not served with a copy of
Defendants’ responses to his objections. While the Court agrees Plaintiff should have been
timely served a copy of the responses,1 the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions
against Defendants and leave to amend his objections “due to counsel’s failure to serve”
him with their responses.2
III.

Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections

and ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. It is
further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the case
is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
S/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
Dated: March 22, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 22, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

1

According to Defendants’ recently-filed letter, Defendants mistakenly served Plaintiff’s
previous address and have now provided copies to Plaintiff’s correct address. (Dkt. 42.)
2

Though Plaintiff states he has “obtained documents that were not available to him at
the time his objections were due,” he gives no indication as to what those documents show
nor how they would aid the Court in its review.
4