Opinion
Civil Action 6:23-cv-1289-DCC-KFM
02-26-2024
Quinteris Zy'Quan Miller, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Nicholson, Defendant.[1]
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kevin F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on the defendant Dr. Nicholson's motion for summary judgment (doc. 63). The plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, brought suit against Dr. Nicholson and others for alleged constitutional violations. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
By order of the Honorable Donald C. Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge, the plaintiff's claims against the other defendants have been dismissed (doc. 67).
BACKGROUND
The plaintiff is a prisoner at Perry Correctional Institution (“PCI”) and was formerly confined at Kirkland Correctional Institution (“KCI”), both part of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). The defendant Floyd Nicholson, DMD, is a licensed dentist and the Director of SCDC's Dentistry Division (doc. 63-2, Nicholson aff. ¶ 1). The plaintiff seeks damages from Dr. Nicholson, alleging that he was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's painful wisdom tooth from 2019 to 2023 by delaying its removal. The plaintiff alleges that during this period he made many complaints about his tooth to proper prison officials and had extraction appointments cancelled, but then learned via a March 15, 2023 grievance response that only Dr. Nicholson could approve the extraction of his tooth (see doc. 1 at 8, comp.; doc. 34, second amend comp. ¶¶ 13-16).
On August 22, 2023, Dr. Nicholson filed his answer to the second amended complaint denying that he violated the plaintiff's rights (doc. 47). On December 21, 2023, he filed his motion for summary judgment (doc. 63) now at issue. With his motion, Dr. Nicholson provides his affidavit and SCDC records of the plaintiff's dental treatment (docs. 63-2, 63-3). He attests that he has been the Director of SCDC's Division of Dentistry since 2021, and he assists SCDC's institutional dental clinics with referrals for complex cases, including approving those involving wisdom tooth removal (doc. 63-2, Nicholson aff. ¶ 2). Relying on the relevant records, Dr. Nicholson states that the plaintiff was seen by SCDC dental provider Dr. David Dixson twice in March 2020 and again in July 2022 at KCI, and the plaintiff was then seen by Dr. Cynthia Baldwin at PCI on January 31, 2023:
During these visits, [the plaintiff] was medicated for the pain stemming from the eruption of his wisdom tooth and received routine dental care to include cleanings and exam. . . . This is standard protocol for a wisdom tooth erupting into the mouth. If pain persists, a referral can be made for removal of the wisdom tooth unless the dental provider feels they can safely remove the tooth within their clinic.(Id. ¶ 4). After the plaintiff's appointment with Dr. Baldwin, she submitted a referral to Dr. Nicholson via email on February 15, 2023, for the removal of the wisdom tooth, and Dr. Nicholson approved it on February 21, 2023 (id. ¶ 5). Dr. Nicholson attests that this was his only direct involvement with the plaintiff's dental care (id. ¶ 3). Thereafter, an appointment was scheduled with Dr. Calvin Boykin, who successfully removed the tooth on May 18, 2023 (id. ¶¶ 5-6). The plaintiff was seen the same day for a post-op appointment by dental staff when he returned to his institution, and medication was given (id. ¶ 6). He was seen again on June 20, 2023, for another post-op appointment, and it was noted that healing was progressing as expected (id.). The records further confirm that the plaintiff was medicated following all of his visits, receiving antibiotics and pain medication (doc. 63-3 at 1-4).
On January 3, 2024, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the plaintiff was advised of the motion for summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately (doc. 64). The plaintiff filed his response in opposition on January 5, 2024 (doc. 66). In his response, the plaintiff acknowledges he received medication after each dental visit, but he contends that it took over three years to remove his wisdom tooth, which he submits was too long (id. ¶¶ 2, 4).
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings and supporting documents “show[ ] 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). As to the first of these determinations, a fact is deemed “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the disposition of the case under the applicable law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is “genuine” if the evidence offered is such that a reasonable jury might return a verdict for the non-movant. Id. at 257. In determining whether a genuine issue has been raised, the court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962).
The party seeking summary judgment shoulders the initial burden of demonstrating to the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the movant has made this threshold demonstration, the non-moving party, to survive the motion for summary judgment, may not rest on the allegations averred in his pleadings; rather, he must demonstrate that specific, material facts exist that give rise to a genuine issue. Id. at 324. Under this standard, the existence of a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position is insufficient to withstand the summary judgment motion. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Likewise, conclusory allegations or denials, without more, are insufficient to preclude the granting of the summary judgment motion. Id. at 248. “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id.
Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners have the right to receive adequate medical care while incarcerated. See Scinto v. Stansberry, 841 F.3d 219, 236 (4th Cir. 2016). When a prison official demonstrates “deliberate indifference” to an inmate's serious medical needs, a constitutional violation occurs under the Eighth Amendment. See id.; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 101-06 (1976). To state a claim under Section 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must show that he had a serious medical need and that officials knowingly disregarded that need and the substantial risk it posed. King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 218-20 (4th Cir. 2016); Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202, 209-11 (4th Cir. 2017). A “serious medical need” is a condition “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.” Heyer, 849 F.3d at 210 (citation omitted). An official acts with deliberate indifference if he had actual knowledge of the prisoner's serious medical needs and the related risks, but nevertheless disregarded them. See Scinto, 841 F.3d at 225-26.
Dr. Nicholson is entitled to summary judgment. As set out in his affidavit, Dr. Nicholson began as the Director of SCDC's Director of Dentistry in 2021, two years after the plaintiff claims his tooth began to hurt. Once in that position, Dr. Nicholson had only one occasion, on February 21,2023, to have direct involvement in the plaintiff's dental care, when Dr. Nicholson approved treating dentist Dr. Baldwin's February 16th referral for the plaintiff's wisdom tooth to be removed. SCDC records of the plaintiff's dental care are in accord, as Dr. Nicholson's name is absent from any of the entries of plaintiff's dental clinic visits, instead showing Dr. Dixson, Dr. Baldwin, and Dr. Boykin as attending to the plaintiff. These records also show that the plaintiff received medication and treatment, including the successful removal of his wisdom tooth on May 18, 2023, less than three months after Dr. Nicholson gave his approval. The plaintiff has presented no evidence to prove otherwise. The failure of the plaintiff to provide any contradictory evidence that might tend to demonstrate that Dr. Nicholson was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs is fatal to his claim. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1240 (8th Cir. 1997) (“In the face of medical records indicating that treatment was provided and physician affidavits indicating that the care provided was adequate, an inmate cannot create a question of fact by merely stating that she did not feel she received adequate treatment.”); Bennett v. Reed, 534 F.Supp. 83, 86 (E.D. N.C. 1981) (“In determining whether a prisoner has received adequate medical treatment, this Court is entitled to rely on the affidavits of medical personnel and prison medical records kept in the ordinary course of operation.” (citations omitted)). As the plaintiff has failed to come forward with any supporting evidence for his conclusory allegations, summary judgment should be granted in favor of Dr. Nicholson. See Pronin v. Johnson, 628 Fed.Appx. 160, 161 (4th Cir. 2015) (“[A] party cannot withstand summary judgment by relying solely on his own self-serving allegations unsupported by any corroborating evidence.”) (citation omitted)).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Now, therefore, based upon the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Dr. Nicholson's motion for summary judgment (doc. 63) be granted.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
250 East North Street, Suite 2300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).