Johnson v. Leonard et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Defendants Todd Leonard, Gwen Blossom, and Michelle Skroch's motion for summary judgment 69 is GRANTED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on 08/02/2017. (TJB)cc: Plaintiff. Modified on 8/2/2017 (lmb).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Marvin Orlando Johnson,
Case No. 16-cv-0435 (WMW/FLN)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
Doctor Todd A. Leonard, Gwen Blossom,
Michelle Skroch, and
Doctor John M. Collier,
This matter is before the Court on the June 5, 2017 Report and Recommendation
(R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel, (Dkt. 109), which
recommends granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Dr. Todd A.
Leonard, Gwen Blossom, and Michelle Skroch, all of whom are employed by MEND
Correctional Care and contracted to provide medical care at the Sherburne County Jail
through MEND Correctional Care (collectively, “MEND Defendants”). Plaintiff Marvin
Orlando Johnson filed timely objections to the R&R, (Dkt. 112), to which the MEND
Defendants filed a timely response, (Dkt. 113). For the reasons addressed below, the
Court overrules Johnson’s objections, adopts the June 5, 2017 R&R, and grants the
MEND Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
After a party files and serves specific written objections to a magistrate judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations, LR 72.2(b)(1), the district court reviews de
novo those portions of the R&R to which an objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
When doing so, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; accord Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3).
Johnson first argues that the R&R applies the incorrect legal standard by assuming
without deciding that Johnson suffered from a serious medical need. Although the R&R
does not articulate with precision the legal elements necessary to support Johnson’s
Section 1983 claim, the R&R correctly applies the legal standard when conducting its
analysis. Johnson must prove two elements for his Section 1983 claim to succeed:
(1) that Johnson had objectively serious medical needs and (2) that prison officials knew
of those needs and deliberately disregarded them. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d
1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). By assuming that Johnson had satisfied the first legal
element—an assumption that favors Johnson—the R&R does not apply the incorrect
legal standard. Rather, the R&R focuses its legal analysis on the second element, which
is essential to Johnson’s claim. Accordingly, the Court overrules this objection.
Johnson also argues that, contrary to the R&R’s conclusion, there are genuine
disputes of material fact as to whether the MEND Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to Johnson’s serious medical needs. Johnson asserts that there is evidence
from which a jury could conclude that the MEND Defendants’ delays in treating his
toothaches “exacerbated [Johnson’s] condition and caused the breakage an[d] extractions.”
To prove that the MEND Defendants actually knew of but deliberately disregarded
Johnson’s serious medical needs, Johnson “must show more than negligence, more even
than gross negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to
the level of a constitutional violation.” Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499
(8th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, deliberate indifference is
similar to “criminal recklessness, which demands more than negligent misconduct.” Id.
Moreover, liability for damages for a federal constitutional tort, as Johnson alleges here,
is personal. Heartland Acad. Cmty. Church v. Waddle, 595 F.3d 798, 805-06 (8th Cir.
2010). Therefore, “each defendant’s conduct must be independently assessed.” Id. at
806. The evidence here supports the R&R’s conclusion that Johnson received extensive
and ongoing medical care and evaluation by the MEND Defendants, as reflected in the
lengthy medical records and affidavits submitted by the parties. This evidence includes
undisputed medical records submitted by Johnson. It is clear from this Court’s careful
review that Johnson has not demonstrated that a genuine dispute of material fact remains
as to whether the MEND Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Johnson’s serious
medical needs. Accordingly, the Court overrules this objection.
Based on the R&R, the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
The June 5, 2017 R&R, (Dkt. 109), is ADOPTED; and
Defendants Todd A. Leonard, Gwen Blossom, and Michelle Skroch’s
motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. 69), is GRANTED.
Dated: August 2, 2017
s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?