Opinion
Civil Action 6:20-cv-3127-JD-KFM
07-01-2021
Carlos Knox, Plaintiff, v. Scott Bodiford, April Roberts, Robert Hollister, Marie Livingston, and Madaline Jean Mathis, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kevin F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on defendant Hollister's motion for summary judgment (doc. 51). The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Greenville County Detention Center (“GCDC”) who is proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 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 Section 1983.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, 2021, the undersigned authorized service of process as to defendant Hollister on the plaintiff's medical indifference claim regarding treatment for Hepatitis C (doc. 33) and recommended that the district court dismiss the remaining defendants and claims with prejudice and without issuance and service of process (doc. 34). The report and recommendation as to the remaining defendants and claims is pending before the district court. On April 8, 12, and 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed motions seeking discovery on numerous issues from the defendants (docs. 45, 47, 48). In his responses in opposition to each of these motions (docs. 49, 52, 56), defendant Hollister noted that, at this time, only the medical indifference claim against him has been approved for service. Defendant Hollister stated that the plaintiff had been provided with his entire medical file, including mental health records, medical grievances, medical inquiries, testing results, and third party providers' records (docs. 49, 52, 56). Accordingly, the undersigned denied the plaintiff's motions on April 30, 2021 (doc. 58).
The plaintiff identified defendant Robert Hollister as the Deputy Director of Public Safety at the GCDC (doc. 8 at 3). However, it appears that this defendant is properly identified as Ronald Hollister (doc. 51-3).
On April 26, 2021, defendant Hollister filed a motion for summary judgment as to the medical indifference claim, along with several affidavits in support (doc. 51). By order filed April 27, 2021, 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 to defendant Hollister's motion (doc. 54). On May 19, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment (doc. 60). The plaintiff raised numerous matters in his motion for extension of time that were completely irrelevant to the single claim against defendant Hollister (id.). The plaintiff also attached 50 pages of documents relating both to his medical indifference claim against defendant Hollister and other matters (doc. 60-1). On May 24, 2021, the undersigned granted in part the plaintiff's motion for extension of time (doc. 64). The deadline for the plaintiff's response was June 11, 2021, but the plaintiff failed to file any response or documents other than those filed with his motion for extension of time. Accordingly, defendant Hollister's motion for summary judgment is ripe for consideration by this court.
The plaintiff filed these same documents again on May 20, 2021 (doc. 62-1).
FACTS PRESENTED
As noted, only the medical indifference claim against defendant Hollister has been approved for service at this time. Defendant Hollister is employed by Greenville County as the Deputy Director for the Department of Public Safety, and part of his duties include managing the command staff at the GCDC (doc. 51-3, Hollister aff. ¶ 3). The plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint that, while he was incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at the GCDC, defendant Hollister told him in a conversation on October 10, 2018, that due to the cost of Hepatitis C treatment, the plaintiff would not receive such treatment (doc. 8-2 at 5).
In support of his motion, defendant Hollister submitted the affidavit of April Roberts, who is employed as the Medical Administrator at the GCDC, along with a copy of the plaintiff's medical record file related to his Hepatitis C (doc. 51-5, Roberts aff. & med. record). The plaintiff's medical records show that the conversation between the plaintiff and defendant Hollister occurred on October 18, 2018, during the plaintiff's appeal related to Medical Grievance # 3, 494, 639 (id. at 26-28, Roberts aff., med. record at GCDC023-025). Specifically, the record shows that the plaintiff complained that someone at the GCDC told the Solicitor's Office that the plaintiff had Hepatitis C and that they needed to know how long the plaintiff would be in the GCDC, since he needed treatment and it cost too much (id.). The plaintiff complained that this was a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) (id.). A member of the Health Services staff responded to the plaintiff, noting that the plaintiff had previously been told that he was not currently a candidate for Hepatitis C treatment and that, prior to the plaintiff being seen for evaluation for his Hepatitis C, the staff had tried to find out how long the plaintiff would be incarcerated due to the required treatment length. The staff member noted that this was not a guarantee that the plaintiff would be a candidate for the treatment (id.). In response, the plaintiff complained that he had “not been told anything by anyone, ” but had been told by Dr. Holtthat “GCDC would not pay for the treatment” (id.). On October 18, 2018, defendant Hollister responded to the plaintiff after reviewing correspondence between the plaintiff and the Health Services staff (id.). Defendant Hollister indicated in that written response that he had also spoken in person to the plaintiff that afternoon. Defendant Hollister stated that the plaintiff's position about staff actions was a matter of permanent record, the plaintiff was presently receiving adequate health care, and defendant Hollister would ensure that during future appointments with the Health Services staff a clearer explanation would be given to the plaintiff (id.).
As noted above, the plaintiff alleges the conversation occurred on October 10, 2018.
As set out below, defendant Hollister submitted the affidavit of Dr. J. Williams Holt, who is a board certified gastroenterologist who was engaged by the GCDC's Medical Department to assist in the treatment of inmates with Hepatitis C and who had several encounters with the plaintiff regarding his diagnosis and treatment (doc. 51-4, Holt aff.).
Dr. Holt testified in his affidavit that he monitored the plaintiff's Hepatitis C and examined the plaintiff and spoke with him on several occasions about the causes, symptoms, and treatment options for Hepatitis C (doc. 51-4, Holt aff. ¶ 4). Dr. Holt testified that he consistently informed the plaintiff that he was not a candidate for Hepatis C treatment for the following reasons: treatment can take from two to three months depending on the medication that is prescribed, and it is imperative that once a course of treatment is started it not be stopped until completed, as doing so would negatively affect the efficacy of the treatment and any future treatment. The plaintiff's status as a pretrial detainee with an unknown expected length of incarceration made him a poor candidate for treatment in the absence of any indication of advanced liver damage. Dr. Holt further noted the plaintiff's history of intravaneous drug abuse and alcohol abuse resulting in alcoholic liver disease and testified that, if released, these untreated behaviors could result in the plaintiff becoming reinfected with Hepatitis C. Dr. Holt further noted that lab results showed the plaintiff's liver status had actually improved due to his forced cessation of alcohol use, and the plaintiff had no evidence of significant liver damage. Dr. Holt testified that the plaintiff's condition had not materially deteriorated due to waiting for treatment until he was in a stable environment. Further, Dr. Holt testified that he never told the plaintiff that he was not going to be treated because GCDC refused to pay the cost or that the treatment was just too expensive, and neither defendant Hollister nor anyone else ever told Dr. Holt not to provide Hepatitis C treatment to the plaintiff because of its cost (id. ¶¶ 4-5).
Defendant Hollister testified in his affidavit that, that while he did not speak with the plaintiff on October 10, 2018, as the plaintiff alleges in his complaint, he did speak with the plaintiff directly and in the presence the then-acting Medical Administrator, Samantha Fleming, on October 18, 2018, regarding why the plaintiff was not considered a candidate for Hepatitis C treatment (doc. 51-3, Hollister aff. ¶ 5). Defendant Hollister testified that he did not tell the plaintiff that he could not or would not receive treatment due to its cost, and he did not make or influence any decision as to the plaintiff's treatment for Hepatitis C (id.). Further, defendant Hollister stated that he played no role in the assessment, diagnoses, or treatment plan developed for the plaintiff (id.). Defendant Hollister testified that he told the plaintiff that he knew that Dr. Holt was monitoring the plaintiff's Hepatitis C and had determined he was not currently a candidate for Hepatitis C treatment due to the indeterminate nature of his confinement at GCDC as a pretrial detainee and the fact that Hepatitis C treatment took several months and should not be interrupted (id. ¶ 6). Defendant Hollister told the plaintiff that there were variables that the medical staff had to consider in determining if the plaintiff was a candidate for such treatment (id.).
Medical Administrator Roberts testified in her affidavit that the plaintiff was recently approved for Hepatitis C treatment (doc. 51-5, Roberts aff. ¶ 4). Specifically, he was evaluated by Dr. Christina M. Bauer with Prisma Health Gastroenterology, and the plaintiff's diagnosis was confirmed and a treatment plan was recommended (doc. 51-5 at 75-95, Roberts aff., med. record at GCDC072-092). Hepatitis treatment medications have been obtained by GCDC Medical Staff and treatment was scheduled to begin on April 29, 2021 (id.).
APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 states, as to a party who has moved for summary judgment: “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 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.
Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs
Defendant Hollister argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on the merits of the claim against him. The undersigned agrees. A pretrial detainee's claims are evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment, which is used to evaluate conditions of confinement for those convicted of crimes. See City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). The standard for reviewing medical claims of pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment is essentially the same as that for a convicted prisoner under the Eighth Amendment-deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991 (4th Cir.1992). Not “every claim by a prisoner [alleging] that he has not received adequate medical treatment states a violation of the [Constitution].” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976). The government is required to provide medical care for incarcerated individuals. Id. at 102. However, to establish deliberate indifference, the treatment “must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir.1990). In order to state a claim, “[a] plaintiff must satisfy two elements . . .: he must show a serious medical need and he must prove the defendant's purposeful indifference thereto.” Sires v. Berman, 834 F.2d 9, 12 (1st Cir. 1987). “[Deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence [but] is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result.” Farmerv. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994). See also Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that “the subjective component requires proof of more than mere negligence but less than malice”). The failure to treat all medical problems to a prisoner's satisfaction is insufficient to support a claim under Section 1983. See Petersen v. Davis, 551 F.Supp. 137, 146 (D. Md. 1982), aff'd, 729 F.2d 1453 (4th Cir. 1984).
The plaintiff has failed to forecast evidence that could give rise to a reasonable inference that defendant Hollister was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's medical needs. It is undisputed that defendant Hollister was not on the medical staff at the GCDC (doc. 51-3, Hollister aff. ¶ 5). To establish a claim for denial of medical care against nonmedical personnel, a prisoner must show that the nonmedical personnel failed to promptly provide needed medical treatment, deliberately interfered with prison doctors' treatment, or tacitly authorized or were indifferent to the prison physicians' misconduct. Miltier, 896 F.2d at 854. Moreover, because most prison officials are not trained medical personnel, they are entitled to rely on the opinions, judgment, and expertise of medical personnel concerning the course of treatment that the medical personnel deemed necessary and appropriate for the prisoner. Id. Here, the undisputed evidence shows that defendant Hollister made no decision regarding the plaintiff's eligibility for Hepatitis C treatment and made no decision regarding the denial of such treatment (id. ¶¶ 5-7; doc. 514, Holt aff. ¶¶ 4-5).). Further, the evidence shows that the plaintiff was seen by GCDC medical staff numerous times over the term of his incarceration for his Hepatitis C diagnosis (doc. 51-5, Roberts aff. & med. record; doc. 51-4, Holt aff.). Moreover, the plaintiff is now receiving Hepatitis C treatment (doc. 51-5, Roberts aff. ¶ 4). Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff has failed to present any evidence of deliberate indifference on the part of defendant Hollister. See Davenport v. Perry, C. A. No. 6:19-cv-02875-TLW, 2020 WL 3620023, at *2-3 (D.S.C. July 1, 2020) (holding there was no basis to conclude that a decision not to treat a pretrial detainee for Hepatitis C was a result of medical indifference toward the detainee where the detention center doctor testified that determining a specific medication regimen for Hepatitis C requires a liver specialist or gastroenterologist who can regularly monitor the virus' response throughout treatment; that due to the nature of the treatment, it was necessary to continuously take and complete any treatment regimen; and that because the detention center was a short-term facility, it was not known how long the detainee would remain there); Crigger v. Wright, C. A. No. 1:15cv713 (LMB/IDD), 2016 WL 1626580, at *4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2016) (similar). Accordingly, defendant Hollister is entitled to summary judgment.
As the undersigned finds that defendant Hollister is entitled to summary judgment on the basis discussed, the defendant's alternative arguments will not be addressed.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, defendant Hollister's motion for summary judgment (doc. 51) should be granted.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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 300 East Washington Street 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).