Nelson v. Stuart et al

Filing 120

ORDER VACATING 114 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations; Granting 80 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by The Anoka County Jail and James Stuart; Adopting 113 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Granting 93 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by John Loes; Overruling 116 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by Norlyn Stanley Nelson.(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/24/2014. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-3143(DSD/TNL)
Norlyn Stanley Nelson,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
James Stuart, Sheriff Anoka
County, The Anoka County Jail,
Doctor John Loes, Anoka County
Jail Doctor,
Defendants.

This

matter

is

before

the

court

upon

the

report

and

recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, dated
February 14, 2014.

The R&R recommended that the court grant the

motions for summary judgment by defendants James Stewart, Anoka
County Sheriff, and Dr. John Loes.

In a previous order, the court

noted that pro se plaintiff Norlyn Stanley Nelson had not objected
to the R&R within the time permitted.

ECF No. 114.

The court

recently learned that Nelson submitted objections to the R&R.
Although untimely, the court will consider those objections, and
thus vacates the previous order and files this amended order
regarding the R&R.

The court denies Nelson’s request for a

continuance.
The court conducts a de novo review of any portion of the
magistrate judge’s opinion to which specific objections are made.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R.
72.2(b).

Based on that de novo review, the Court overrules

Nelson’s objections and adopts the R&R.
Nelson first objects to the magistrate judge’s rejection of
his claim that Dr. Loes’s decision to lower the dosage of his
Imitrex prescription and later to discontinue the prescription
altogether reflected a deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs. Nelson argues that he should have been permitted to
receive Imitrex on demand. The court disagrees. As the magistrate
judge concluded, the record establishes that Dr. Loes carefully
monitored Nelson’s health and prescribed Imitrex as indicated based
on his medical training and Nelson’s condition.

Under these

circumstances, the court cannot conclude that Dr. Loes - or by
extension Stewart or the Anoka County Jail - was deliberately
indifferent.
Nelson next objects to the magistrate judge’s determination
that defendants did not unduly delay his hip surgery.

Nelson

argues that his surgery was needlessly delayed by several months
despite his immediate need for relief.

The court again disagrees.

The medical records support the magistrate judge’s finding that
Nelson’s hip surgery was not immediately necessary.

Indeed, the

record shows that Nelson was first treated with pain medication and
intraarticular

injections.

When

those

ineffective, Dr. Loes scheduled the surgery.

2

treatments

proved

The fact that Nelson

ultimately required surgery does not render the prior course of
treatment constitutionally inadequate. Further, the delay between
the determination that Nelson required surgery and the surgery
itself is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference.

The

record does not support a finding that surgery was required on an
emergency basis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The court’s previous order [ECF No. 114] is vacated;

2.

The objections [ECF No. 116] to the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation are overruled;
3.

The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No.

113] is adopted in its entirety;
4.

The motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 80, 93] are

granted; and
5.

The action is dismissed with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated:

September 24, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

3