Howard v. Knudsen et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Correctional Medical Services (CMS), Defendant Unknown Knudsen motion is GRANTED. A separate Judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 1/28/14. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LESLIE BERNARD HOWARD,
JOHN KNUDSEN, ET AL.
Case No. 1:12CV0003 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
filed on March 11, 2013. Upon consideration of that Motion and lack of opposition
thereto, the Court will grant the Motion as set forth below.
Plaintiff filed his complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages
against Defendants, Corizon, Inc., f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, Inc, and Dr. John
Knudsen. Plaintiff’s claims and allegations against Defendants relate to the care and
treatment he received for an infection that developed in the small toe of his right foot and
the subsequent surgical removal of the toe. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. (See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 7.)
Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Moberly Correctional Center of the
Missouri Department of Corrections. Defendant Corizon, Inc. has a contract with the
Missouri Department of Corrections to provide medical care to offenders. Defendant
Knudsen provided medical care to Plaintiff at Moberly Correctional Center. At the time
of the alleged incidents, Plaintiff had an eight-year history of diabetes and also had nerve
damage and poor circulation in his legs and feet attributable to his diabetes and a gunshot
In its motion for summary judgment, Defendant Corizon, Inc. asserts it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff’s claims are premised entirely on
the alleged actions or inactions of Defendant Knudsen. Liability in a case brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cannot be premised on the theory of respondeat superior.
Plaintiff has not pled that Defendant Corizon, Inc. maintained any unconstitutional
customs, practices, or policies. In addition, the undisputed medical evidence
demonstrates that Defendant Knudsen and other medical staff promptly and appropriately
addressed each complaint raised by Plaintiff, providing numerous medical examinations,
foot treatments, appointments with medical specialists, follow-up care, medication,
footwear, and mobility devices. Therefore, Defendant Corizon, Inc. is entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim against it.
In addition, Defendant Knudsen is entitled to summary judgment because
Plaintiff has not presented sufficient facts or evidence to establish that Defendant
Knudsen acted with deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs or that any
alleged delay in Plaintiff’s medical treatment or course of treatment had a detrimental
effect or constituted a constitutional deprivation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
on Plaintiff’s claims is GRANTED.
A separate Judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of January, 2014.
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?