Opinion
1:22-CV-00228-SPB
03-14-2024
DARIUS SAMUELS, Plaintiff v. DR. LONGNECKER, P.A. STROUP, NP KNEISS, ALL SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; Defendants
IN RE: ECF NO. 35
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RICHARD A. LANZILLO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) be GRANTED.
II. Report
A. Introduction and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Darius Samuels (“Samuels”), an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Albion (“SCI-Albion”), alleges that Defendants Nicholas Longnecker, M.D., Larry Kneiss, CRNP, and Daniel Stroup, P.A., (“Medical Defendants”) acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. See ECF No. 6. Samuels is proceeding pro se. ECF No. 5. His verified Complaint alleges that the Medical Defendants failed to follow a plan of care recommended by an outside specialist for a “malignant cyst” on one of his kidneys. See ECF No. 6, ¶¶ 5-11. The Medical Defendants answered the Complaint (ECF No. 25) and, now that discovery has concluded (ECF No. 26), they have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. ECF No. 35. Their motion is accompanied by a Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 36), a supporting brief (ECF No. 39), and exhibits including 683 pages of Samuels' medical records detailing his treatment from February 11, 2019, until January 26, 2023. See ECF No. 36-1. Samuels filed an “affivavit” in opposition to the motion but has not filed a brief or responsive concise statement. The Medical Defendants' motion is before the Undersigned for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
B. Undisputed Factual Background
For the most part, the following facts are taken from the Medical Defendants' Concise Statement. Samuels was directed to file a memorandum or brief in opposition to the Medical Defendants' motion, a responsive concise statement of material facts, and an appendix or exhibits to his responsive concise statement. See ECF No. 40. The Court's Order included specific instructions regarding the filing and contents of a responsive concise statement of material facts and advised Samuels of the consequences of failing to file a responsive concise statement, including that each “material fact set forth in the moving party's/parties' Concise Statement of Material Facts will for purposes of the motion for summary judgment be deemed admitted unless Plaintiff specifically denies or otherwise controverts it in his/her Responsive Concise Statement as required by Local Rule 56(C)(1).” Id., p. 2, ¶ 2. The Court's order also included specific instructions regarding the requirements for presenting facts by affidavit, including that any affidavit “either be sworn to under oath (notarized) or ... include immediately before the signature of the individual making the affidavit or declaration the following statement, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746: T declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.'” Id., at ¶ 5. As noted above, Samuels filed an affidavit (ECF No. 43), but did not file a responsive concise statement of material facts or supporting exhibits. The Court then entered a Show Cause Order directing Samuels to file a responsive concise statement on or before February 22, 2024, and again warning him that, “[s]hould he fail to do so, the Defendants' Concise Statement of Material Facts will be deemed admitted.” See ECF No. 44. Despite the Court's latitude and warning, Samuels has never filed a responsive concise statement or explained his failure to do so. Accordingly, under LCvR 56(E), each factual statement in the Medical Defendants' concise statement is deemed admitted. However, because Samuel's Complaint is verified, the Court will treat that pleading as an affidavit and consider its factual statements, but only to the extent they are based on Samuels' personal knowledge and do not propose inferences unwarranted by the facts. See Jackson v. Armel, 2020 WL 2104748, at 5 (W.D. Pa. May 1, 2020) (citing Reese v. Sparks, 760 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1985)). See also Newmones v. Ransom, 2024 WL 624239, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2024). Samuels' recently filed affidavit will be similarly considered.
The factual allegations in the verified complaint are sparse. Without reference to any dates, Samuels alleges that after an “abnormal ultrasound reading,” an “outside specialist” examined him and “it was discovered that Plaintiff had a ‘malignant cyst' persistent on his kidney.” ECF No. 6, ¶6. This specialist told Samuels that he would forward “an immediate plan of action” to Defendant Longnecker, the medical director at SCI-Albion. Id., ¶ 7. Upon Samuels' return to SCI-Albion, Longnecker did not follow-up. Id., ¶ 8. Further, Samuels alleges that Defendant Stroup and Kneiss likewise failed to follow-up. Id., ¶¶ 10-11. Both Stroup and Kneiss told Samuels that his condition “was not serious.” Id.
The Medical Defendants' Concise Statement includes a comprehensive recounting of Samuels' entire medical history from February 11, 2019, until January 26, 2023. See ECF No. 36, ¶¶ 5-216. Inasmuch as his claims are based on treatment associated with an alleged malignant cyst on his kidney, an exhaustive recitation of Samuels' entire medical history- including treatment for such ailments as a hernia and hypothyroidism-is unnecessary.
Samuels began to complain of abdominal pain on February 11, 2019. ECF No. 36, ¶ 5. An ultrasound was ordered and performed by a physician on March 12, 2019. Id., ¶¶ 7- 8. The test showed a possible abnormal cyst on Samuels' right kidney. Id. Further testing was recommended to confirm this finding. Id. A CT scan was performed on March 27, 2019. Id., ¶ 10. This scan revealed unremarkable kidneys with no cyst detected. Id., ¶ 10. Upon his return from the CT scan, Samuels was seen by the prison medical department and he denied having any issues or problems post-procedure. Id., ¶ 11.
Then, in May of 2019, Samuels again reported abdominal pain. Id., ¶ 13. He underwent additional x-rays and was prescribed a laxative for constipation. Id., ¶¶ 13-15. His CT scan results were again reviewed. Id., ¶ 13. Throughout that summer, Samuels was seen by various medical professionals for his continued complaints of abdominal pain. He was prescribed additional laxatives for constipation and gas, and he was also diagnosed with a hernia and treated for that condition. Id., ¶¶ 16-59. Samuels continued to report abdominal pain, prompting numerous x-rays to be taken. He was again diagnosed with constipation. See, e.g., zW., ¶¶ 71122. On October 6. 2020, Samuels underwent a second CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis. Id., ¶ 123. Like the prior CT scan, this scan showed no cyst or other kidney abnormality. Id. At a sick call for complaints of abdominal pain and hemorrhoids on December 1, 2020, Defendant Stroup explained to Samuels that the October CT scan showed his kidneys to be normal (although malrotated); that is, no cyst or other abnormality of his kidneys was detected. Id., ¶ 130. Samuels was seen by Defendant Kneiss on December 23, 2020 and January 12, 2021. Id., ¶¶ 133, 134. Samuels continued to complain of constipation, hemorrhoids, and abdominal pain. Id. Kneiss treated him with medication and advised him to drink more fluids. Id., ¶ 134. Kneiss again reviewed the results of the October CT scan with Samuels. Id.
None of Samuels' claims implicate the treatment he received for his hernia. Therefore, the extensive history of treatment he received for that condition will not be recounted.
Samuels met with Defendant Longnecker on February 2, 2021. Id., ¶ 135. Longnecker again informed Samuels that his CT scan was negative for any cysts or abnormalities to his kidneys. Id. On March 29, 2021, Samuels was seen for complaints of abdominal pain and a non-defendant physician assistant again told Samuels that his CT scan from October was normal. Id., ¶ 141. On April 21, 2021, Defendant Kneiss saw Samuels for ongoing abdominal pain. Id., ¶ 143. He received medication. Id. Defendant Stroup was to see Samuels on May 18, 2021, but Samuels failed to appear. Id., ¶ 146. Samuels did see Stroup on May 27, 2021. Id., ¶ 147. Samuels was again complaining of a cyst on his kidney. After examining Samuels, Stroup once again reviewed the results of Samuels' CT scan from October, 2020, and told him that there was no cyst on either of his kidneys. This time, Samuels was admitted for a twenty-three hour observation for his bowel issues. Id. On May 28, 2021, Defendant Longnecker saw Samuels in the infirmary. Id., ¶ 149. Samuels continued to complain of abdominal pain. Id. Given the years of treatment, tests, negative blood work, and negative examinations, Longnecker informed Samuels of his concerns that Samuels was “being dishonest about his symptoms.” Id.
On June 24, 2021, Defendant Kneiss saw Samuels. This time, Samuels requested testing for cancer as he claimed to be losing weight. Id.,¶ 152. Tests were ordered. Id. Kneiss saw Samuels again on July 12, 2021, related to his reported weight loss, abdominal pain, difficulties with urination, and anorexia. Id., ¶ 154. Again, Kneiss explained to him that the results of his last CT scan showed no abnormalities. Id.
On January 23, 2022, Samuels returned to see Defendant Kneiss for complaints of abdominal pain. Id. ¶ 178. And once again, Kneiss reviewed the results of his last CT scan which did not show the existence of a cyst on his kidneys. Id., ¶ 179. Kneiss saw Samuels again on January 26, 2022, and repeated the same CT scan results to him. Id., ¶ 180. Defendant Stroup saw Samuels on July 29, 2022. Id., ¶ 200. Samuels was again complaining of abdominal pain and Stroup noted Samuels' “extensive history” of ultrasounds and CT scans. Id. The remaining medical history (July 29, 2022 until January 26, 2023) concerns Samuels treatment for other medical conditions unrelated to the claims alleged herein. See id., ¶¶ 201217.
C. Summary Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires the district court to enter 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). Under this standard “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A disputed fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome under applicable substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Gray v. York Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992). An issue of material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257; Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1287-88 (3d Cir. 1991).
When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial, the court must view the record and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. Moore v. Tartier, 986 F.2d 682, 685 (3d Cir. 1993); Clement v. Consol. Rail Corp., 963 F.2d 599, 600 (3d Cir. 1992); White v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1988). To avoid summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party may not rest on the unsubstantiated allegations of his or her pleadings. Instead, once the movant satisfies its burden of identifying evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond his pleadings with affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories or other record evidence to demonstrate specific material facts that give rise to a genuine issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, “a pro se plaintiff is not relieved of his obligation under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 56 to point to competent evidence in the record that is capable of refuting a defendant's motion ...” Dawson v. Cook, 238 F.Supp.3d 712, 717 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (citation omitted). Put another way, pro se status does not relieve a non-moving party of his “obligation under Rule 56(c) to produce evidence that raises a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (quoting Boykins v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 78 F.Supp.2d 402, 408 (E.D. Pa. 2000)); see also Winfieldv. Mazurkiewicz, 2012 WL 4343176, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2012).
D. Because the record does not support a finding of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment, summary judgment should be entered in favor of the Medical Defendants.
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment imposes constitutional limitations on a prisoner's conditions of confinement. See Rhondes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981); Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991). “[A] prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met.” Gilblom v. Gillipsie, 435 Fed.Appx. 165, 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). First, the plaintiff must demonstrate a deprivation that is “objectively, sufficiently serious.” Beers-Capitol, 256 F.3d at 125 (quoting Farmer,511 U.S. at 834) (quotation marks and citations omitted). This objective component is narrowly defined: only “extreme deprivations” suffice to make out an Eighth Amendment claim. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992). A prisoner must show that the condition, either alone or in combination with other conditions, deprived him of “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,” or at least a “single, identifiable human need.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991) (citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)). These needs include “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety.” Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703, 709 (3d Cir. 1997). “[A] totality of the circumstances test must be applied to determine whether the conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 427 (3d Cir. 1990).
Second, the plaintiff must show that the prison official “subjectively acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., deliberate indifference.” Tillman v. Lebanon County Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 418 (3d Cir. 2000). “This subjective component is also narrowly construed.” Henry v. Overmyer, 2013 WL 3177746, at *2 (W.D. Pa. June 24, 2013). A prison official's conduct violates the Eighth Amendment “only if he knows that the inmate[ ] face[s] a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847) (alterations in original). Thus, “ ‘[t]o overcome a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff [alleging deliberate indifference to conditions of confinement] must come forward with evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendantofficials were ... knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm.' ” Zamichieli v. Pa. Dep't of Corrs., 2022 WL 777201, at *3 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2022) (quoting Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 259 (3d Cir. 2010)). See also Newmones v. Ransom, 2024 WL 624239, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2024).
In this case, Samuels has failed both to demonstrate that he has a serious medical need or that medical personnel acted with deliberate indifference to his medical concerns. Samuels contends that he suffered from an untreated malignant cyst on his kidney. His medical records, however, belie the existence of a cyst or other kidney abnormality. While an outside medical provider may have suspected the existence of such a condition based on the results of an ultrasound, multiple CT scans were performed and demonstrated that Samuels suffered from no such condition. Therefore, Samuels' claim that he had a serious medical need based on the existence of a malignant cyst on his kidney is unsupported by and contrary to the record. The record also demonstrates that no Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his complaints of abdominal pain or to the initial ultrasound's indication of a cyst on Samuels' kidney. Medical personnel ordered multiple CT scans upon Samuels' abdomen, all of which were negative for a cyst or other abnormality of his kidneys. Medical personnel advised Samuels of these results on numerous occasions.
The record also demonstrates that the Medical Defendants and other medical personnel regularly evaluated and treated Samuels for other conditions associated with his complaints of abdominal pain. The number, variety, and consistency of medical examinations, tests, and other diagnostic procedures performed on Samuels while he was an inmate at SCI-Albion preclude a finding that any Defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See e.g., Payo v. Stechschulte, 2022 WL 912588, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2022) (No deliberate indifference found where it was undisputed that “Plaintiff was seen, evaluated and treated on a regular basis and was prescribed medication as medically needed.”); Gause v. Diguglielmo, 339 Fed.Appx. 132, 135 (3d Cir. 2009) (Deliberate indifference standard unmet where “[Plaintiffs] medical records show that he was seen many times by the prison medical staff and received medicine, physical therapy, and even treatment outside of the prison,” thus establishing that “[Plaintiff] received medical care.”). The record includes voluminous medical records that demonstrate that Samuels received treatment and follow-up care for his complaints of abdominal pain, including numerous diagnostic tests such as ultrasounds, CT scans, and X-rays, throughout the period relevant to this action. As demonstrated by the record, most assessments and treatments were in response to Samuels' “sick call requests” and the remainder were for follow-up assessments or treatments. Courts have consistently concluded that assessment, treatment, and care such as provided in this case negate a finding of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. See Trainer v. Wellpath, 2023 WL 2603196, at *19 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2023) (collecting cases). III. Conclusion
Because the record does not support that Samuels suffered from a serious untreated medical need or that any Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his complaints of abdominal pain or other complaints or concerns, it is recommended that the Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted and that judgment be entered in their favor.
IV. Notice to Parties Concerning Objections
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72((b)(2), and Local Rule 72(D)(2), the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72(D)(2).