Goist v. United States of America
Filing
156
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; finding as moot 132 Motion For Injunctive Relief ; finding as moot 139 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 140 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; finding as moot 141 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 142 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 149 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 150 Motion for Compulsory Physical Examination ; finding as moot 151 Motion for Appointment of Expert Witness ; finding as moot 152 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 153 Motion to Stay; finding as moot 153 Motion for Protective Order; granting 74 Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSING this action WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 7/21/2015.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Paul B. Goist,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Charles Samuels, Rear Admiral
)
Newton R. Kendig, Harrell Watts, )
South East Regional Director, John )
and Jane Does, Warden Gruz,
)
Victor Loranth, M.D., and William )
)
Rigney, P.A.,
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 9:14-4036-RMG
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and
the case be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 146). Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 148).
As set forth more fully below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court, grants the
motion for summary judgment and dismisses this action with prejudice.
Legal Standard
The recommendation of the Magistrate Judge has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility for making a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 260, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made and may "accept, reject or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.c.
-1
636(b)(1).
Summary judgment is appropriate if a party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact" and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). In other words, summary judgment should be granted "only where it is clear that there is
no dispute concerning either the facts of the controversy or the inferences to be drawn from those
facts. Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Props., 810 F. 2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987). "In determining
whether a genuine issue has been raised, the court must construe all inferences and ambiguities in
favor of the non-moving party." Health South Rehab. Hosp. v. Am. Nat 'I Red Cross, 101 F.3d
1005, 1008 (4th Cir. 1996). The party seeking summary judgment shoulders the burden of
demonstrating to the court that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
For a prisoner to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for ineffective medical
assistance, the plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his
serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). To succeed on an Eighth
Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim, a prisoner must prove: (1) that objectively the
deprivation of a basic human need was "sufficiently serious" and (2) that subjectively the
defendant acted with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294,298
(1991). The subjective component can be demonstrated by showing that the defendant acted
with deliberate indifference. This requires more than a showing of medical negligence. Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). Rather, a prison official must demonstrate deliberate
indifference by "completely failing to consider an inmate's complaints or by acting intentionally
to delay or deny the prisoner access to adequate medical care." Bridges v. Keller, 519 Fed.
-2
App'x 786, 787 (2013). Mere disagreement between the prisoner and prison officials regarding
the proper treatment required does not constitute deliberate indifference. The Constitution
requires only that the prisoner receive adequate medical care and is not guaranteed treatment of
his choice. Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 817 (lst Cir. 1988). The fact that a prisoner believes
he had a more serious injury or that he required better treatment does not establish a
constitutional violation. King v. United States, 536 Fed. App'x 358, 362-63 (4th Cir. 2013).
Discussion
The Magistrate Judge has ably and thoroughly discussed the extensive medical record in
this matter and the Court finds it unnecessary to repeat it in in full. The record establishes that
Plaintiff, then a prisoner at FCI Williamsburg, suffered an injury to his knee on April 12, 2013
when he fell while engaging in "horse play" with another prisoner. He was seen by a physician's
assistant regarding the injury on April 17, 2013, who aspirated fluid from his knee and
recommended ice, elevation and over the counter pain medication. (Dkt. No. 74-13 at 16). A
plain film of the knee was performed that same day, which was negative, and a MRI of the knee
was performed on May 29, 2013, which showed a meniscus tear and moderate joint effusion.
(ld at 22). Plaintiff was thereafter seen by a prison physician on July 2,2013, who
recommended an orthopaedic consult. (ld. at 25). Plaintiff was seen by an orthopaedist on
August 22,2013, who recommended surgical repair of the knee. (ld at 34-35). Throughout this
time, Plaintifrs pain symptoms were being treated by Ibuprofen. (ld at 16,28,42,46).
Plaintiff was thereafter referred on March 21, 2014 to another prison health facility, at
FMC Butner, for his surgical treatment and rehabilitation. According to a treating physician at
FCI Williamsburg, he made the referral because under BOP policies "[i]nmates requiring
-3
extended, formal physical therapy" should be referred to a medical referral center, such as FMC
Butner. (Dkt. 74-8 at 7). Plaintiff arrived at FMC Butner on May 22, 2014 and underwent
additional diagnostic and clinical assessments until he had the surgery performed on July 7, 2014.
(Dkt. 74-13 at 48-84). Plaintiffthereafter underwent extensive physical therapy at FMC Butner.
(Id. at 10 1-128).
Although Plaintiff has made 31 objections to the R & R, the essence of Plaintiff's
constitutional claim is that he believes he had a serious, emergent medical condition that required
immediate medical treatment and the Bureau of Prisons health care officials viewed Plaintiff as
having a chronic condition that required surgical treatment on a non-emergent basis when it
could reasonably be scheduled. As Defendant Dr. Victor Loranth stated in a sworn affidavit,
medical treatment is prioritized at the BOP so that the most emergent cases go first and other
patients are scheduled as bed space becomes available. Dr. Loranth stated that while Plaintiff
waited for bed space at FMC Butner, his condition was monitored and he received pain
management. Dr. Loranth further stated that the Plaintiffs care was consistent with "prevailing
community standards." (Dkt. No. 74-8 at 7-8).
While Plaintiff claims that the delay in his surgical care was for "monetary reasons", the
record demonstrates that from the time his knee injury was diagnosed until the time of his
surgery he was seen by multiple health care providers, including two orthopaedic surgeons,
underwent numerous radiographic studies, including two MRI's, and had his pain symptoms
treated by Ibuprofen. (Dkt. No. 74-13 at 15-16,18,21,25-29,32,34-35,42,46,48-52,53-54,
56,57-58,59-63,64-65). It is notable that even after his transfer to FMC Butner in May, 2014,
Plaintiff was further evaluated before surgery was performed in early July, again indicating that
-4
his condition did not required emergent medical intervention.
As the Magistrate Judge's thorough summary and the medical record make abundantly
clear, Plaintiff has not been the victim of deliberate indifference in regard to his medical
condition but has received extensive and effective medical care from his providers. He may have
desired a quicker surgery date but nothing about the course of treatment undertaken here
remotely suggests a violation of Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment.
Conclusion
The Magistrate Judge reasonably and correctly concluded that Plaintiff has failed to state
a valid constitutional claim under Bivens against any of the named Defendants and that they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. After a careful review of each of Plaintiff s objections,
the Court is unpersuaded that the R & R does not correctly set forth the material facts and proper
conclusions oflaw. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 146) as the order of the
Court, GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and DISMISSES this action
WITH PREJUDICE. l
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
I In light of the Court's adoption of the R & R of the Magistrate Judge, grant of summary
judgment to Defendants, and the dismissal of this action with prejudice, the following pending
motions are rendered moot: Dkt Nos. 132, 139, 140, 141, 142, 149, 150, 150, 151, 152, 153.
-5
Richard MarK' ergel
United States District Judge
July "Lt, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
-6
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?