Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Corrections Corporation of America

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

September 27, 2016

KEVIN MAURICE BROWN, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Ronald A. White, United States District Judge.

         This action is before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court has before it for consideration Plaintiff's third amended complaint (Dkt. 61), Defendants' motion (Dkt. 101), and a special report prepared by Davis Correctional Facility (DCF) at the direction of the Court, in accordance with Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (Dkt. 94). Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants' motion, instead filing a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 102).

         Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) who is incarcerated at Dick Conner Correctional Center in Hominy, Oklahoma, brings this action under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking monetary relief for alleged constitutional violations during his incarceration at DCF in Holdenville, Oklahoma. The defendants are Corrections Corporation of America and the following DCF officials: Ray Larimer; Traci Tanner, Nurse; FNU Doyle; FNU Berry, Unit Manager; FNU Gentry, Chief of Security; FNU Madrid, Chief of Unit Managers; FNU Riddle, Captain; Bobby Booner, Deputy Warden; Jamie Balwin, Nurse; C/C Hovinetz; Tim Wilkerson, Warden; Nurse Bowers; and Correctional Officer Laurnt.[1]

         Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff's third amended complaint (Dkt. 61) is difficult to understand, and portions are not legible. His statement of the nature of case reads:

1# Medical neglect--needs as one that has been diagnosed by a physician.
2# The use of force.
#3 [sic] The conditions you placed me in [illegible] consider when determining the adequacy of prison conditions no lights in the cell no heat water on the floor no matt [sic] to sleep on plus 72 hrs. no soap [illegible] toothpaste & no clothes on.

(Dkt. 61 at 2).

         Plaintiff claims in Count 1 that on December 9, 2014, the medical staff did not provide his blood pressure pills or a mattress when he was in pain (Dkt. 61 at 2). He also alleges that on an unspecified date, Defendant Doyle made him lie on the ground, then Doyle was untruthful about the matter. Id. at 3. Plaintiff also claims that on an unspecified date and at the direction of Defendant Warden Wilkinson, Defendant Hovinetz took him to “jail” and lay on him, saying Plaintiff had threatened her. Id. at 4. Defendant Berry allegedly “watched the hold [sic] thing and could have stopped it.” Id. In Count 2, Plaintiff alleges that on December 11, 2014, Berry came to his cell door and threatened Plaintiff, saying Doyle did not use force on Plaintiff. Id. at 8.

         In Count 3 Plaintiff claims that C/O Hudson called Defendant Nurse Tanner, the nurse on duty, and told her that Plaintiff needed medication and to check Plaintiff's medical records for any medical instructions. Id. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Deputy Warden Bobby Booner saw Plaintiff in lock-up and received a copy of a “civil matter.” Id. Booner, however, would not help Plaintiff. Id. (Dkt. 61 at 8).

         Summary Judgment Standards

         Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. In making this determination, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment, however, may not simply allege there are disputed issues of fact; rather, the party must support its assertions by citing to the record or by showing the moving party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Thus, the inquiry for this Court is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52.

         Exhaustion of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.