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.

Stanley v. Balock

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

December 11, 2017

TOM STANLEY, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT BALOGH, [1]Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BERNARD M. JONES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Tom Stanley, Jr., a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to his pain (Compl.) [Doc. No. 1]. United States District Judge Stephen P. Friot has referred the matter for proposed findings and recommendations consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Defendant Robert Balogh filed the Court-ordered Special Report [Doc. No. 21] and a Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (Motion) [Doc. No. 36]. Plaintiff thereafter filed three documents challenging the Motion, two entitled “Plaintiff's Respons[e] to Defendant[']s Summary Judgment” [Doc Nos. 37, 38] and one simply entitled “Affidavit of Plaintiff” (Pl.'s Aff.) [Doc. No. 41]. For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner, who at the time he filed his Complaint, was confined at the Joseph Harp Correctional Center. See Compl. at 4.[2] Plaintiff says he is a bone cancer patient who received opioid medication for his pain until Defendant cancelled his pain medication, resulting in severe pain. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff alleges his cancer progressed such that he “was no longer able to walk due to the pain.” Id. at 7.

         II. Analysis of Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion

         Defendant Balogh seeks summary judgment on two grounds: Plaintiff's nonexhaustion of administrative remedies and failure to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See Motion at 7-13.[3] For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the Court grant Defendant's Motion on both grounds.

         A. Standard for Review

         Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court shall grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that 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); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986). Once a moving party shows it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to point out the specific facts that create disputed factual issues. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The nonmoving party must present some evidence, other than its initial pleadings, to show that there is more than just a “metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (quoting Rule 56(e) (“Rule 56(e) . . . requires the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by [other evidence] designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”).

         To defeat a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise. See Bones v. Honeywell Int' l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004). Conclusory allegations will not create a genuine issue of material fact defeating a summary judgment motion. See L&M Enter. Inc. v. BEI Sensors & Systems Co., 231 F.3d 1284, 1287 (10th Cir. 2000). In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, a district court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of that party. See Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10th Cir. 2009). “However, because at summary judgment we are beyond the pleading phase of the litigation, a plaintiffs version of the facts must find support in the record: more specifically, as with any motion for summary judgment, when opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts.” Id. (quotations, brackets, and citation omitted).

         B. The Undisputed Facts

         According to Defendant, these facts are undisputed:

• Plaintiff was accused of non-compliance with pain medication on December 15, 2015.
• Defendant Balogh thereafter changed Plaintiffs pain medication prescriptions “to pain medication less ...

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.