United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action is before the Court on Defendants' motion for
summary judgment. The Court has before it for consideration
Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1), Defendants' motion
(Dkt. 33), a special report prepared by officials of Davis
Correctional Facility (DCF) at the direction of the Court, in
accordance with Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317
(10th Cir. 1978) (Dkt. 23), and Plaintiff's responses to
the special report and motion (Dkts. 26, 34).
an inmate in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections who is incarcerated at Lexington Correctional
Center in Lexington, Oklahoma, brings this action under the
authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief for
alleged constitutional violations during his incarceration at
DCF, a private prison in Holdenville, Oklahoma. The
defendants are Corrections Corporation of America (CCA); Tim
Wilkinson, DCF Warden; DCF Nurse Stewart; and Ray Larimer,
DCF Clinical Supervisor.
have moved the Court for dismissal of this action or in the
alternative for summary judgment. Having moved for summary
judgment in their favor, the movants are required to show the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that the
movants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
judgment is not appropriate if there exists a genuine
material factual issue such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-51 (1986).
Plaintiff, as “the nonmoving party may not rest on
[his] pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial as to those
dispositive matters for which [he] carries the burden of
proof.” Applied Genetics Int'l. v. First
Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238 (10th Cir. 1990)
(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324
(1986)). In this regard, all evidence of the nonmoving party
is deemed true, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in
favor of the nonmoving party. Id. at 255 (citing
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 114,
158-59 (1970)). “To defeat a motion for summary
judgment, evidence . . . must be based on more than mere
speculation, conjecture, or surmise.” Bones v.
Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir.
2004). This Court's function is not “to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Id. at 249. With these standards in mind, the Court
turns to the merits of the defendants' motion.
alleges the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs. He claims that on April 18, 2013, he
requested medical attention for his two broken fingers and
his severely sprained wrist. Defendant Nurse Stewart
initially misdiagnosed the injures and “snatched”
one of his broken fingers, believing the finger was merely
dislocated. On April 23, 2013, Plaintiff's hand was
X-rayed, but he never saw a doctor at DCF. He was transferred
to another facility for medical treatment on May 14, 2013,
but he claims his hands have healed in their broken positions
with loss of range, constant pain, loss of grip, and some
deformity. He sets forth six grounds for
Count 1: The failure of defendant's
[sic] Wilkinson and Larimer to take disciplinary or other
action to curb the known pattern of improper medical
treatment by defendant Steward constituted deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff's and other prisoners'
safety, and contributed to and proximately caused the
above-described violation of 8th Amendment rights and denied
Count 2: The failure of defendant's
[sic] CCA and Wilkinson to train, supervise, and discipline
prison staff regarding all aspects of prison operations
including but not limited to appropriate serious medical
needs, such as, examination and treatment for broken hands
and severely injured wrist constituted ...