United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Introduction and Background
matter is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. Docket No. 51. Along with their Motion,
Defendants have contemporaneously filed a supporting
Memorandum of Law (Docket No. 52) and a Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts (Docket No. 56), along with the
Declarations of Bobby Aylward (Docket No. 53), James Bridges
(Docket No. 54), and Blair Leibach (Docket No. 55).
has not filed a Response to the instant Motion, but has filed
a document entitled “Response to Defendants of
[sic] Statement of Facts.” Docket No. 66.
leave of Court (Docket No. 68), Defendants have filed a
Reply. Docket No. 69.
filed this pro se, in forma pauperis action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983, alleging that Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment constitutional rights by being deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical need by denying him
medical care for his hernia, and by being deliberately
indifferent to his conditions of confinement when a bunk bed
fell on him. Docket Nos. 1, 23. Plaintiff sues Corrections
Corporation of America (now “CoreCivic”), Jail
physician James Bridges, and Warden Blair Leibach in their
individual and official capacities. Id. Plaintiff
seeks $300, 000.00 for “pain and suffering, ”
$300, 000.00 for “mental distress, depression, ”
and $300, 000.00 for “malpractice.” Id.
filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting
materials arguing that they are entitled to summary judgment
because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, as required under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C.
§1997e; (2) respondeat superior is not a basis for the
imposition of liability under §1983 and Plaintiff cannot
establish that any official CoreCivic policy, practice, or
custom violated his rights; (3) Plaintiff cannot establish
individual liability for Defendants Bridges and Leibach as
the Jail physician and Jail Warden because he cannot
establish that they either encouraged or directly
participated in the conduct of which he complains; (4)
Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs because the evidence
demonstrates that Defendants provided appropriate medical
treatment and safe bunk beds to him throughout his
incarceration at the Jail; and (5) Plaintiff cannot establish
that he suffered more than a de minimis physical injury, as
is required under the PLRA for recovery. Docket Nos. 51, 52.
noted, Plaintiff has not filed a Response to the instant
Motion, but has filed a document entitled “Response to
Defendants of [sic] Statement of Facts”
(Docket No. 66) that does not contain the requisite citations
to the record and is not in a form required by either
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or the Local Rules. In that document,
however, Plaintiff acknowledges:
12. Dr. Bridges give [sic] enough pain meds and see
you when ever you have to be seen. . . .
13. Dr. Bridges gave Hernia support undergarments that was to
[sic] small. Also ordered ultrasounds for Mr.
Chadwick for October 14, 2015 and another in [sic]
February 9, 2016 and did order urlourology [sic]
surgical consult. (date?)
14. Mr. Chadwick did see medical providers at the detention
15. Mr. Chadwick has never blamed Dr. Bridges for faulty bunk
16. Mr. Chadwick did file a grievance on medical and
was denied by Mr. Leibach. Being a warden Mr.
Leibach should know what's going on between maintenance
employees and officers.
17. [Mr.] Chadwick did complain of back, neck, and arm
numbness due to his health and was ordered x-rays and never
received results from them and still suffers to this day.
Docket No. 66.
leave of Court (Docket No. 68), Defendants have filed a
Reply, arguing that even if Plaintiff had properly responded
to their Motion or Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,
summary judgment would still be warranted because Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required
under the PLRA, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
an official CoreCivic policy, practice, or custom violated
his constitutional rights, because Plaintiff cannot
demonstrate sufficient personal involvement by Defendants
Bridges or Leibach in the allegedly violative conduct, and
because Plaintiff cannot establish that any of the Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need.
Docket No. 69.
reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 51)
be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED.
Undisputed Facts 
Declaration of Bobby Aylward
Bobby Aylward is a CoreCivic employee involved in the
grievance process at the Metro-Davidson County Detention
Facility (“Jail”). Docket No. 53, ¶ 1.
CoreCivic's administrative grievance system enables
inmates at the Jail to seek redress for issues relating to
the conditions of their confinement. Id., ¶ 2.
Policy 14-05, Inmate/Resident Grievance Procedures, the
processing of a standard inmate grievance at the Jail
proceeds as follows: (1) Within seven days of becoming aware
of a specific grievable issue, the inmate must file an
informal resolution. A department-level supervisor or other
appropriate official must respond to the informal resolution
within fifteen days of receipt; (2) If the inmate is
dissatisfied with the response to the informal resolution,
the inmate must file a formal grievance within five days, and
the grievance officer must respond to the formal grievance
within fifteen days of receipt; and (3) If the inmate is
dissatisfied with the response to the formal grievance, the
inmate must file a grievance appeal within five days, and the
warden must respond to the grievance appeal within fifteen
days of receipt. Id., ¶ 3. The response of the
warden is final and constitutes the exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Id.
filed several informal resolutions during his incarceration
at the Jail, but only one has any bearing on the matter
before the Court: on February 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed an
informal resolution that he had been denied his medication by
“Nurse Eldrige.” Id., ¶¶ 4, 5.
Plaintiff pursued the first level of the grievance procedure
regarding this claim, but did not pursue the second or third
levels. Id., ¶ 5. Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies at the Jail regarding his claim
of inadequate medical treatment for a hernia before April 6,
2016. Id., ¶ 6.
Declaration of James Bridges, M.D.
James Bridges is employed by CoreCivic and serves as the
physician at the Jail. Docket Nos. 54, ¶ 2; 55, ¶
4. Dr. Bridges, along with other medical providers,
continuously evaluated and treated Plaintiff's hernia
pain from the date of his incarceration at the Jail on June
8, 2015 through his release date of April 28, 2016. Docket
No. 54, ¶ 3. Specifically, Dr. Bridges and other medical
providers performed numerous physical evaluations of
Plaintiff, ordered Plaintiff hernia support undergarments,
provided Plaintiff with medications as necessary, and entered
appropriate medical orders. Id., ¶ 4.
Additionally, Dr. Bridges ordered two ultrasounds for
Plaintiff that were performed on October 14, 2015 and
February 9, 2016. Id.
Plaintiff's February 9, 2016 ultrasound, Dr. Bridges
ordered a urology surgical consult for Plaintiff.
Id., ¶¶ 4, 5. Dr. Bridges' analysis of
the ultrasound was that Plaintiff's hernia did not
require emergent surgical repair, and thus, a waiting period
of two months to see an offsite specialist was appropriate
and was a typical waiting period. Id., ¶ 5.
to Dr. Bridges because he is not responsible for scheduling,
Plaintiff was housed at another facility from March 9, 2016
through March 21, 2016 and missed his scheduled urology
surgical consult. Id. When Dr. Bridges next saw
Plaintiff on April 6, 2016, he rescheduled Plaintiff's
urology surgical consult appointment, but Plaintiff was
released on April 28, 2016, before his appointment took
his incarceration at the Jail, Plaintiff saw Dr. Bridges or a
nurse practitioner at least seven times at the Jail, and also
saw other medical providers during numerous sick call
appointments, in relation to his hernia pain. Id.,
Bridges did not have any involvement in the maintenance of
the bunk beds at the Jail. Id., ¶ 7. Dr.
Bridges also did not instruct or encourage CoreCivic
employees to inadequately maintain the bunk beds.
Declaration of Blair Leibach
Blair Leibach is employed by CoreCivic and serves as the Jail
Warden. Docket No. 55, ¶¶ 2, 4. CoreCivic operates
the Jail under contract with the Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Id.,
policies are designed and intended to ensure that CoreCivic
employees provide adequate medical treatment to inmates,
including pharmaceutical services and off-site medical
treatment when appropriate, and provide adequate living