Gelardos v. Campbell et al

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Please Read Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 05/17/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

MARINOS N. GELARDOS,

)

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:15CV183-HEH

V.

CHARLES CAMPBELL, et ai,
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Granting Motion for Summary Judgment)

Marinos N. Gelardos, a Virginia inmate proceeding

se and informa pauperis,

filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.' The Court construes Gelardos's Complaint to assert
the following claims:

Claim One: Defendant Campbell violated Gelardos's Eighth Amendment^ rights
when he:

(a) discontinued Gelardos's medications for nerve disorder, pain,
and gastroesophageal reflux disease ("GERD") (Compl. ^^10-15,
ECFNo. 1);

(b) failed to administer injections for soft tissue damage in
Gelardos's knees {id. ^ 21(b)); and,

' That statute provides, in pertinent part;

Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law....

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

^"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted." U.S. Const, amend. VIII.

(c) failed lo refer Gelardos to specialists for his medical issues {id.
1136.)

Claim Two: Defendant Allen violated Gelardos's rights under the Eighth
Amendment by failing to refer him to specialists for his medical
issues. {Id.)

Claim Three: Defendant Allen violated Gelardos's right to due process under the

Fourteenth Amendment^ by failing to adequately respond to his
requests for medical services. {Id. ^ 23.)
Claim Four: Defendants Ray and Schilling violated Gelardos's right to due
process by "fail[ing] to investigate [Gelardos's] health problems
during the exhaustive remedy process." {Id. 43-44.)

Claim Five: Defendants Ray and Schilling violated Gelardos's rights under the
Eighth Amendment by "overlooking the seriousness of [his] claims
in the exhaustive remedies." {Id. 138.)
Gelardos seeks damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief {Id. at 5-6.)
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 15, 2016, the Court granted

the Motion for Summary Judgment previously filed by Defendants Ray and Schilling
with respect to Claim Four, but denied it without prejudice with respect to Claim Five.
Gelardos v. Campbell, No. 3:15CV183-I-IEH, 2016 WL 3876434, at *4 (E.D. Va. July
15,2016). The Court directed Defendants Ray and Schilling to resubmit a Motion for
Summary Judgment addressing Claim Five within thirty days. Id. By Memorandum

Opinion and Order entered on November 10, 2016, the Court granted Defendants Ray
and Schilling's renewed Motion for Summary Judgment v/ith respect to Claim Five.
Gelardos v. Campbell, No. 3:15CV183-HEH, 2016 WL 6662691, at *6 (E.D. Va. Nov.
10,2016).

^"No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law . ..." U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1.

Defendants Campbell and Allen (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Motion for

Summary Judgment on December 6, 2016. (ECF No. 50.) By Memorandum Order
entered on February 13, 2017, the Court denied their Motion without prejudice, noting
that "[ajlthough Defendants Campbell and Allen seek dismissal of all of Gelardos's

claims against them with prejudice, they have inexplicably failed to address Claims Two

and Three, and this Court declines to do so in the first instance." (ECF No. 55, at 2-3.)
The Court directed Defendants to resubmit their Motion for Summary Judgment within
thirty days.

This matter is now before the Court on the Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants on March 2, 2017. (ECF No. 57.) Gelardos has filed a
Response. (ECF No. 60.) For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment.
I.

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). It is the responsibility of the party seeking summary
judgment to inform the court of the basis for the motion and to identify the parts of the
record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex

Corp. V. Catrett, All U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[WJhere the nonmoving part)' will bear the
burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly
be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the motion is

properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing
affidavits or '"depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate

'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting former Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c) and 56(e) (1986)). In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court

"must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." United States v.

Carolina Transformer Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (ch'mgAnderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., All U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). However, a mere '"'scintilla of evidence'" will
not preclude summary judgment. Anderson, All U.S. at 251 (quoting Improvement Co.
V. Mmson, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 442, 448 (1872)).

In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants rely upon the
evidence they submitted in support of their previous Motion for Summary Judgment.
That evidence includes: (1) a declaration from Defendant Campbell (Mem. Supp.

Renewed Mot. Summ. J. Attach. 1 ("Campbell Decl."), ECF No. 51-1); and, (2) copies
of Gelardos's medical records {id. Ex. 1-A ("Medical Records"), ECF No. 51-2).

At this stage, the Court is tasked with assessing whether Gelardos "has proffered

sufficient proof, in the form of admissible evidence, that could carry the burden of proof
of his claim at trial." Mitchell v. Data Gen. Corp., 12 F.3d 1310, 1316 (4th Cir. 1993)

(emphasis added). Gelardos did not attach any supporting evidence to his response to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. With respect to Gelardos's Complaint, a

notary public's seal appears on the sixth page; however, the Complaint is not admissible

for purposes of summary judgment because Gelardos has not sworn to its contents under
penalty of perjury, and there is no indication that the notary public administered an oath

to Gelardos. See McCoy v. Robinson, No. 3:08CV555, 2010 WL 3735128, at *2 (E.D.
Va. Sept. 22, 2010) (alterations in original) ("[M]erely notarizing [a] signature does not

transform a document into [an] affidavit that may be used for summary judgment
purposes." (quoting

.4m. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1306-07 (5th Cir.

1998))).

Gelardos's complete failure to present any admissible evidence to counter

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment permits the Court to rely solely on

Defendants' evidence in deciding the Motion for Summary Judgment. See Forsyth v.
Ban-, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994) ("'Rule 56 does not impose upon the district

court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's
opposition to summary judgment.'" (quoting

v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d

909, 915 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1992))). Accordingly, the following facts are established for the

Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court draws all permissible inferences in favor of
Gelardos.
II.

UNDISPUTED FACTS

Gelardos arrived at St. Brides Correctional Center ("SBCC") on April 7, 2014.

(Campbell Decl. ^ 5(b) (citing Medical Records at 238).) Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos on
April 8, 2014. (Campbell Decl. 15(b) (citing Medical Records at 235).) At that time, Dr.
Campbell continued Gelardos on the following medications: Gabapentin (Neurontin),
Metformin, Meloxicam, Cyclobenzaprine, Omeprazole, Buproprion, Buspirone,
Lisinopril, Amitriptyline, and Lovastatin. (Medical Records at 235.)

Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos on April 22, 2014 for a chronic care follow-up.

(Campbell Decl. ^ 5(c) (citing Medical Records at 234).) Gelardos told Dr. Campbell
that Robaxin and Tegretol affect his GERD. (Medical Records at 234.) However,

Gelardos then stated, "I'll be ok put me on it I need something." {Id.) Gelardos also
requested insoles for his shoes. {Id.) Dr. Campbell noted Gelardos's "reports of mild
pain in the knees, and left shoulder pain, with no swelling (edema)." (Campbell Decl.
^ 5(c) (citing Medical Records at 234).) Gelardos's knees had full range of motion and

no swelling. (Campbell Decl. 5(c).) His left shoulder had decreased range of motion.
{Id.) Dr. Campbell told Gelardos that "per DOC policy ... Tylenol must be purchased
from the commissary, as well as Motrin .. . ." {Id.) Dr. Campbell prescribed Tegretol,

Tylenol, Metformin, Robaxin for pain, and Zantac for GERD. {Id. (citing Medical
Records at 234).) He discontinued Gelardos's Flexeril and Prilosec prescriptions, and

"ordered a taper of Gabapentin (Neurontin) followed by discontinuation of Gabapentin."
{Id.) Neurontin is "not FDA-approved for [nerve pain] and ... is frequently abused in

prisons." {Id. ^ 4.) Dr. Campbell also determined that Neurontin was "inappropriate" for
Gelardos because of his "history of illicit drug abuse." {Id.)

Gelardos was issued gel insoles for his shoes on April 30, 2014. (Medical Records
at 73.)

On May 14, 2014, Gelardos complained to H. Evans, RN, that he was

experiencing stomach pains from his Norvasc, Robaxin, and Tegratol prescriptions.

(Medical Records at 229.) Nurse Evans referred Gelardos to Dr. Campbell for
evaluation. {Id.)

Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos for his complaint that Tegretol and Norvasc were
causing side effects on June 3, 2014. (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(k) (citing Medical Records at
227).) Dr. Campbell noted that Gelardos had "decreased range of motion in the lumbar

spine, normal gastrointestinal functioning, no apparent distress, and normal gait and
balance." {Id.) Dr. Campbell discontinued Gelardos's prescriptions for Robaxin and

Tegretol, and prescribed Depakote, Zantac, and twenty-one days' worth of Tylenol. {Id.)
On June 19, 2014, Gelardos submitted an emergency grievance in which he

complained that he had been experiencing heartburn and vomiting. (Medical Records at

226.) Nurse Evans referred Gelardos to Defendant Allen "for proof of indigent status to
get commissary medications for this condition from medical." (Campbell Decl. T| 5(1)
(citing Medical Records at 226).)

Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos again on July 15, 2014, (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(n)

(citing Medical Records at 224).) Gelardos complained that his Zantac prescription was
not effective and that he had pain in both knees. {Id.) Dr. Campbell examined Gelardos

and determined that he was "in no apparent distress, without gastrointestinal symptoms,

without swelling of the knees, and with full range of motion." {Id.) Dr. Campbell
"ordered Prilosec for sixty days, then Zantac, Mobic for 30 days for pain and
inflammation ... then Tylenol for 14 days, then repeat." {Id.) That same day, Dr.
Campbell, "discontinued Mobic because an NSAID allergy was listed in Mr. Gelardos's
chart, and changed this to Tylenol for ninety days." {Id.)
On August 8, 2014, Gelardos saw a nurse after he submitted an emergency
grievance regarding his GERD. (Campbell Decl. ^1 5(p) (citing Medical Records at 220).)

Gelardos complained of "burning in tiie back of his throat [and] sometimes the vomit

feeUng comes up to his throat [and] back down to stomach." (Medical Records at 220.)
He stated that Zantac did not work and requested Prilosec. {Id.) The nurse noted that Dr.
Campbell had seen Gelardos on July 15, 2014, and had counseled him on his medication
regimen. {Id.) Gelardos's throat and lymph nodes appeared normal. {Id.)

Gelardos received a back brace on August 15, 2014. (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(q)
(citing Medical Records at 70, 219).)

On August 19, 2014, Gelardos "complained of being taken off of Neurontin for

nerve pain." (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(r) (citing Medical Records at 101).) He also

complained about being taken off Prilosec, but admitted that he was "still getting it at
least temporarily." (Medical Records at 101.)

Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos on August 25, 2014 for Gelardos's GERD. (Campbell
Decl. ^1 5(s) (citing Medical Records at 218).) Gelardos told Dr. Campbell that he had "a
constant burning in the back of [his] throat that won't go away." (Medical Records at
218.) Gelardos said that Prilosec was "doing its job [and he didn't] have the heartburn

anymore like with the Zantac." {Id.) Dr. Campbell increased Gelardos's Prilosec
prescription. (Campbell Decl. f 5(s).)

On September 2, 2014, Nurse Evans saw Gelardos with complaints of back pain
after a fall. (Medical Records at 217.) Gelardos told Nurse Evans that wearing his back
brace helped "tremendously." {Id.) Nurse Evans noted that Gelardos was already
receiving medication for pain. {Id.) Gelardos was given three days off work because of
his back injury, {/d.)

On September 10, 2014, Gelardos refused a nurse sick call regarding his request
for bilateral knee braces. (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(u) (citing Medical Records at 216).)
Gelardos "claimed that he had a cane in the past and that he would handle the issue

without a co-pay by complaining." (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(u) (citing Medical Records at
69).)

On September 19, 2014, Gelardos asked for a knee brace. (Medical Records at

216.) Gelardos complained of heartburn and nausea, as well as knee pain. {Id. at 21516.) Gelardos "had full range of motion in both knees, with no swelling or
discoloration." (Campbell Decl.

5(v) (citing Medical Records at 215).) He was

prescribed milk of magnesia for nausea and was provided education on decreasing the

size of his meals and avoiding red sauce, spicy foods, and eating before bed. {Id. (citing
Medical Records at 215).)

On October 7, 2014, Gelardos refused treatment for GERD. (Campbell Decl.
^ 5(w) (citing Medical Records at 214).)

On October 8, 2014, Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos for his GERD. (Campbell Decl.

T1 5(x) (citing Medical Records at 214).) Gelardos said that he had a "constant burning in
the back of his throat." (Medical Records at 214.) It was better with Prilosec but still

present. {Id.) Gelardos requested knee braces for both knees so he could go walking.
{Id.) Dr. Campbell "counseled that knee braces were not clinically indicated in [his]
judgment, but ordered knee x-rays." (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(x) (citing Medical Records at
214).) The x-rays were completed on October 15, 2014, {Id. (citing Medical Records at
213).)

Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos for a chronic care follow-up on October 28, 2014.

(Campbell Decl. ^ 5(y) (citing Medical Records at 212).) Gelardos complained that he

had constant pain in his knees and lower back, and that knee braces would help.
(Medical Records at 212.) Dr. Campbell "ordered additional medications at that time and

ordered testing for Mr. Gelardos's diabetes." (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(y).)
On March 9, 2015, Gelardos "threatened medical staff with physical harm and

stated that no nurse was to come near him." (M ^ 5(z) (citing Medical Records at 209).)

On April 22, 2015, Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos for a chronic care follow-up.
(Campbell Decl. ^ 5(bb) (citing Medical Records at 205).) Dr. Campbell prescribed

several medications, including Prilosec and Tylenol. (Campbell Decl. Tit 5(bb) (citing
Medical Records at 205).)

On April 23, 2015, Gelardos submitted an Inmate Request Form to the medical

department, stating that Defendant Allen had spoken with medical about ordering more
orthopedic shoe inserts for Gelardos. (Medical Records at 65.) Gelardos received the
new inserts on May 8, 2015. {Id. at 64.)
On May 15, 2015, Gelardos was issued a back brace. (Medical Records at 63,
202.)

On July 17, 2015, Gelardos refused his chronic care appointment. (Campbell
Decl. ^ 5(ff) (citing Medical Records at 202).)

On October 28, 2015, Dr. Campbell saw Gelardos for a chronic care follow-up.

(Campbell Decl. ^ 5(gg) (citing Medical Records at 201).) Gelardos did not have any

10

complaints. (Medical Records at 201.) Dr. Campbell prescribed several medications,
including Prilosec and Tylenol. {Id.)
III.

EIGHTH AMENDMENT

To survive a motion for summaryjudgment on an Eighth Amendment claim,
Gelardos must demonstrate that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs. See Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir. 2001). A

medical need is "serious" if it "'has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating
treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the
necessity for a doctor's attention.'" Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 846 (7th Cir. 1999)).

The subjective prong of a deliberate indifference claim requires the plaintiff to
demonstrate that a particulardefendant actually knew of and disregarded a substantial

risk of serious harm to his person. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
"Deliberate indifference is a very high standard—a showing of mere negligence will not
meet it." Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 105-06(1976)).

[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for
denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official

knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw
the inference.

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Farmer teaches "that general knowledge of facts creating a
substantial risk of harm is not enough. The prison official must also draw the inference

11

between those general facts and the specific risk of harni confronting the inmate."

Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 168 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing Fomer, 511 U.S. at 837).
Thus, to survive a motion for summary judgment under the deliberate indifference

standard, a plaintiff"must show that the official in question subjectively recognized a

substantial risk of harm

[and] that the official in question subjectively recognized

that his actions were 'inappropriate in light of that risk.'" Parrish ex rel. Lee v.

Cleveland, 372 F.3d 294, 303 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Rich v. Bruce, 129 F.3d 336, 340
n.2(4th Cir. 1997)).

In evaluating a prisoner's complaint regarding medical care, the Court is mindful
that "society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care" or

to the medical treatment of their choosing. Hudson v. McMlllian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992)
(citing

429 U.S. at 103-04). Absent exceptional circumstances, an inmate's

disagreement with medical personnel with respect to a course of treatment is insufficient
to state a cognizable constitutional claim, much less to demonstrate deliberate

indifference. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985) (citing
Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 6 (3d Cir. 1970)).
A.

Discontinuation of Medications

In Claim One (a), Gelardos alleges that Dr. Campbell was deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs because he discontinued Gelardos's medicafions for nerve disorder,
pain, and GERD. (Compl.

10-15.) Specifically, Gelardos faults Dr. Campbell for

discontinuing his prescriptions for Neurontin and Prilosec. (Id. 110.) "Whether and how
pain associated with medical treatment should be mitigated is for doctors to decide free
12

from judicial interference, except in the most extreme circumstances." Snipes v. DeTella,
95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996). Gelardos demonstrates no extreme circumstances here.

See, e.g., Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921, 923-25 (2d Cir. 1970) (granting relief
when prison doctor prematurely forced prisoner plaintiff, without hospital ordered pain
medication, to walk out of the hospital and stand for meals after plaintiff had leg surgery
for which hospital specialist had ordered plaintiffto lie flat and not to walk).

On April 22, 2014, Dr. Campbell discontinued Gelardos's Prilosec prescription,
and "ordered a taper of Gabapentin (Neurontin) followed by discontinuation of

Gabapentin." (Campbell Decl. f 5(c) (citing Medical Records at 234).) Neurontin is "not

FDA-approved for [nerve pain] and ... is frequently abused in prison." (Campbell Decl.
^ 4.) Dr. Campbell determined that Neurontin was not appropriate for Gelardos because
of his "history of illicit drug use." {Id.)

Gelardos fails to demonstrate that Dr. Campbell's decisions constitute deliberate
indifference. In assessing a claim of deliberate indifference, the Court must also consider

the totality of medical care provided, rather than simply the additional treatment the

inmate was denied. See Walkers v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494, 501 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Reed
V. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 855 (7th Cir. 1999)). During the time when he provided
treatment to Gelardos, Dr. Campbell prescribed several medications for Gelardos's

conditions. (Medical Records at 201, 205, 212, 217, 224, 227.) Moreover, on July 15,
2014, Dr. Campbell again prescribed Prilosec to Gelardos. (Campbell Decl. ^ 5(n).) At
one point, Dr. Campbell increased Gelardos's Prilosec prescription. (Campbell Decl.
II 5(s).)
13

Beginning in April of2014 and regularly thereafter, Dr. Campbell prescribed
various medications to treat Gelardos's pain and GERD. Given these circumstances,

Gelardos fails to demonstrate that Dr. Campbell acted with deliberate indifference by not
prescribing Neurontin and by temporarily discontinuing his Prilosec prescription. See

Diaz V. Turner, 160 F. App'x 360, 362-63 (5th Cir. 2005) (finding inmate's disagreement
with decision by medical personnel not to provide him with nonprescription medication
on demand fails to constitute deliberate indifference to medical needs); Reyes v.
Gardener, 93 F. App'x 283, 285 (2d Cir. 2004) (concluding defendants' decision to
prescribe Tylenol or Motrin to manage prisoner's pain and to administer Demerol or

Morphine only when necessary did not constitute deliberate indifference). "Itwould be

nice ifafter appropriate medical attention pain would immediately cease, its purpose
fulfilled, but life is not so accommodating. Those recovering from even the best
treatment can experience pain." Snipes, 95 F.3d at 592. As Gelardos has failed to

demonstrate that Dr. Campbell acted with deliberate indifference to his pain and GERD,
Claim One (a) will be dismissed.''
B.

Knee Injections

In Claim One (b), Gelardos contends that Dr. Campbell failed to administer

injections for soft tissue damage in Gelardos's knees. (Compl. ^ 21(b).) Gelardos,
In his Response, Gelardos alleges that after he was transferred from SBCC to Haynesville
Correctional Center, Dr. Levine re-prescribed Neurontin. (Resp. 1.) However, if an inmate's

"disagreement with a doctor's professional judgment does not state a violation ofthe Eighth
Amendment, then certainly no claim is stated when a doctor disagrees with the professional
judgment ofanother doctor. There may, for example, be several acceptable ways to treat an
illness." White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 1990); see United States v. Clawson,
650 F.3d 530, 538 (4th Cir. 2011).

14

however, fails to direct the Court to any evidence that suggests the lack of such injections
exposed him to a substantial risk of serious harm. Moreover, Gelardos fails to

demonstrate that Dr. Campbell was deliberately indifferent to his knee condition by
failing to administer injections. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. At most, Gelardos states a

disagreement with Dr. Campbell with respect to the appropriate course of treatment for
his knees. See Wright, 766 F.2d at 849 (citing Gittlemacker, 428 F.2d at 6).

Accordingly, Claim One (b) will be dismissed.^
C.

Failure to Refer to Specialists

In Claims One (c) and Two, Gelardos faults Dr. Campbell and Defendant Allen

for failing to refer him to specialists for his medical issues. (Compl. ^ 36.) Gelardos,

however, fails to direct the Court to any evidence that suggests the lack of such referrals
exposed him to a substantial risk of serious harm. Moreover, Gelardos fails to

demonstrate that Dr. Campbell and Defendant Allen were deliberately indifferent to his

medical conditions by failing to refer him to specialists for those symptoms. See Selfv.
Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 2006) ("Matters that traditionally fall within the
scope of medical judgment are such decisions as whether to consult a specialist or
undertake additional medical testing." (citing Ledoux v. Davies, 961 F.2d 1536, 1537

(10th Cir. 1992))). Again, at most, Gelardos states a disagreement with Dr. Campbell
and Defendant Allen with respect to the appropriate course of treatment for his

' In his Response, Gelardos alleges that the medical providers at Sussex I State Prison, his
current place of incarceration, have given him injections in his right knee. (Resp. 2-3.) Again,
however, the fact that these medical providers may have disagreed with Dr. Campbell's
professional judgment fails to support an Eighth Amendment claim. See White, 897 F.2d at 110;
Clawson, 650 F.3d at 538.
15

conditions. See Wright, 766 F.2d at 849 (citing Gittlemacker, 428 F.2d at 6).
Accordingly, Claims One (c) and Two will be dismissed.
IV.

DUE PROCESS

In Claim Three, Gelardos contends that Defendant Allen violated Gelardos's right
to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to adequately respond to his
requests for medical services. (Compl. ^ 23.) Gelardos contends that Defendant Allen

responded "with answers that [did] not coincide with the request." (Id) However, "there

is no constitutional right to participate in grievance proceedings." Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d
72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)). Because

Gelardos enjoys no constitutional right to participate in grievance proceedings, his
allegation that Defendant Allen improperly responded to his requests is legally frivolous.
See Banks v. Nagle, Nos. 3:07CV419-HEH, 3:09CV14, 2009 WL 1209031, at *3 (E.D.
Va. May 1, 2009). Moreover, simply "[r]uling against a prisoner on an administrative

complaint does not cause or contribute to the [constitutional] violation." George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Claim Three will be
dismissed.

V.

OUTSTANDING MOTIONS

Gelardos has filed two motions requesting that the Court revoke Dr. Campbell's

license to practice medicine ("Motions Requesting Revocation of Dr. Campbell's
Medical License," ECF Nos. 53, 54). The Court has no authority to provide the relief
Gelardos seeks, as "[m]edical licensing is a matter of state law." Jones v. Joubert,

No. CCB-14-2391, 2015 WL 5136355, at *1 n.2 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2015) (informing
16

inmate that, to the extent he sought revocation of defendants' medical licenses, he could

seek relief by contacting the state Board of Physicians or Board of Nursing).
Accordingly, Gelardos's Motions Requesting Revocation of Dr. Campbell's Medical
License (ECF Nos. 53, 54) will be denied.
VI.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 57) will be granted. Claims One, Two, and Three will be dismissed. Gelardos's

Motions Requesting Revocation of Dr. Campbell's Medical License (ECF Nos. 53, 54)
will be denied. The action will be dismissed.

An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/

Date:

^

HENRY E. HUDSON

j*l^OI(a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Richmond, Virginia

17