Forshey v. Huntingdon County et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM re Dfts' mtn for Partial Summary Judgment 61 and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of MJ Mehalchick 73 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 1/12/17. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN FORSHEY, an incapacitated :
person, by the guardian of his person :
:
and estate, LINDA J. FORSHEY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
HUNTINGDON COUNTY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.

Civil No. 1:13-cv-0285

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate
Judge in which she recommends that Defendants’ partial motion for summary
judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 73.) Plaintiff filed objections
to part of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 74) and Defendants responded
(Doc. 75). For the reasons set forth herein, the objections will be overruled and the
Report and Recommendation will be adopted.
I.

Background
This action was brought by Linda J. Forshey, as guardian of Plaintiff Brian

Forshey (“Forshey”), an incapacitated person. Forshey was a pre-trial detainee at
the Huntingdon County Prison during the months leading up to and on July 24,
2011. During this time there was a heat wave occurring in Pennsylvania. Forshey
alleges that as a result of the prison not properly taking action to ameliorate the
conditions within the prison to combat the effects of the heat, Forshey eventually

suffered brain damage. (Doc. 37.) Forshey brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging deficiencies in conditions of confinement and deliberate
indifference to a medical need. (Id.)
The Magistrate Judge made the following recommendations:
1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
Forshey’s conditions of confinement claim be
DENIED;
2. Defendants Bair and Black are not entitled to
qualified immunity on Forshey’s conditions of
confinement claim;
3. The motion for summary judgment of Defendants
Bair and Black, in their individual and official
capacities, on Forshey’s deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need be GRANTED;
4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on any
Monell liability for Forshey’s conditions of
confinement claim related specifically to the running
of showers while not in use be DENIED; and
5. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on any
Monell liability for Forshey’s deliberate indifference
claim arising from Nurse Watkins’ conduct be
GRANTED.
Plaintiff objects to the third and fifth recommendations. (Doc. 74.)
II.

Discussion
As to the third recommendation, Plaintiff claims that Warden Duane Black

was deliberately indifferent by failing to adopt a policy requiring officers to
contact him while off-duty to apprise him of any inmate medical problems. (Id. at
pp. 3-6 of 31.) A deliberate indifference claim to a serious medical need requires
proof that the official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health
2

or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The courts in this circuit
have consistently held that a plaintiff cannot succeed on a claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 without evidence of a defendant’s personal involvement. (Doc. 75,
p. 3.) As Defendants note, Warden Black was not aware of Forshey’s condition
until his hospitalization. (Id.) Thus, the recommendation as to Warden Black will
be adopted.
The same jurisprudence applies to Deputy Warden Darrell Bair. Deputy
Warden Bair was notified of Forshey’s condition by telephone after medical
intervention had occurred. (Doc. 73, p. 15.) Furthermore, a prison official has no
obligation to second guess medical personnel as to the treatment provided to an
inmate. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation as to Deputy
Warden Bair will be adopted.
As to the fifth recommendation, Forshey claims that the Magistrate Judge
erred in recommending that summary judgment be granted to Defendants because
Nurse Watkins was acting as a final policy maker as required for a Monell liability
claim. (Doc. 74, p. 9 of 31.) He cites Dominguez v. Corrections Medical Services
in support of his claim. 555 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2009). The Sixth Circuit affirmed
the denial of summary judgment holding that a prison nurse could have acted with
deliberate indifference in the treatment of an inmate who suffered a heat stroke. Id.

3

at 551-52. The court further held that the nurse was not entitled to qualified
immunity. Id. at 552.
In the case at hand, Forshey did not plead a § 1983 claim against Nurse
Watkins, nor did he specifically name Nurse Watkins as a defendant in either
complaint. (See Docs. 1 & 19.) While the parties argue and cite cases supporting
their respective positions as to whether Nurse Watkins is a final policy maker, the
subject is moot as no such claims involving Nurse Watkins were filed in any of the
complaints. Thus, the Magistrate Judge’s fifth recommendation will be adopted.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation will be adopted. An appropriate order will issue.

s/Sylvia Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: January 12, 2017

4