Opinion
3:17-cv-174-KRG-KAP
09-13-2022
PATRICK DAVIS, Plaintiff v. JANET PEARSON, MUHAMMAD NAJI, M.D., Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KEITH A. PESTO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RECOMMENDATION
Doctor Naji's motion to dismiss, ECF no. 65, should be denied.
Report
As was discussed at the initial scheduling conference, review of the adequacy of the amended complaint is not a matter of writing on a clean slate: a panel of the Court of Appeals found the plaintiff's original pro se complaint adequate to state an Estelle v Gamble claim against all four original defendants even though plaintiff himself only sought to state such a claim against the two remaining defendants. Under those circumstances any critical analysis of the counseled amended complaint would be captious.
An inmate health care provider violates the Eighth Amendment by “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To constitute deliberate indifference, “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 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). The taxonomy of deliberate indifference claims recognized in this circuit includes cases where (1) prison authorities deny reasonable requests for medical treatment, (2) knowledge of the need for medical care is accompanied by the intentional refusal to provide it, (3) necessary medical treatment is delayed for non-medical reasons, and (4) prison authorities prevent an inmate from receiving recommended treatment for serious medical needs. Pearson v. Prison Health Service, 850 F.3d 526, 538 (3d Cir.2017). The Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 12-14 adequately states a claim against Doctor Naji that fits quite easily into category four.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties can within fourteen days file written objections to this Report and Recommendation. In the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).