United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL AS MOOT, CERTIFYING AN
APPEAL WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND NOTIFYING
PLAINTIFF OF APPELLATE FILING FEE
D. TODD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jody Wayne Miller, a prisoner acting pro se, filed
this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
(ECF No. 1.) Miller alleges he received inadequate medical
treatment, in violation of his constitutional rights, during
his incarceration in the Crockett County Jail (Jail) in
Alamo, Tennessee. United States District Judge Waverly D.
Crenshaw granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
assessed the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1915(a)-(b), and
transferred the case to this district, where venue is proper.
(ECF No. 4.) Thereafter, the Court partially dismissed the
complaint and directed that process be issued for the
remaining Defendant, Candice Haynes, the former Chief Jail
Administrator. (ECF No. 12.) Before the Court is
Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 32.)
Miller filed a response to the motion, ECF No. 33), and
Defendant then filed a reply, (ECF No. 34).
Court set out Miller's claims in the order of partial
Miller alleges in the complaint that he was arrested on June
15, 2016, and taken to the Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) A week
prior to his arrest, Miller had been injured in an accident
in which he suffered a broken collar bone as well as other,
less serious, injuries. (Id.) He alleges that upon
his arrival at the Jail, he told Defendant Haynes that he had
an appointment to have surgery at a local hospital.
(Id.) However, Haynes allegedly told Miller they did
not take people to the hospital from the Jail because there
were not enough employees to do so. (Id. at 5.) When
Miller told Haynes that his collar bone was broken and he was
in a lot of pain, she allegedly told him that was not her
concern. (Id.) Although Miller told Haynes he had
been prescribed medication for the pain, he was not given
that medication. (Id.)
Miller further alleges that an unidentified nurse . . .
refused his request for assistance in getting to the hospital
for surgery, refused to provide him with his prescribed pain
medication, and refused to adequately examine his injury.
(Id. at 5-6.) Although she ultimately provided him
with two Ibuprofen daily, Miller alleges it had no effect on
his pain. (Id. at 6.)
Miller asserts that when he received no help from Defendant
Haynes or the nurse, he sent a note to Sheriff Klyce but
received no reply. (Id.) Miller then filed two
grievances seeking medical help and transportation to the
hospital for surgery. (Id.) He alleges the only
response to the grievances was from Defendant Haynes, who
told him that he had better stop trying to cause trouble for
the Jail. (Id. at 7.) . . . .
Miller alleges he remained in the Jail for two months without
treatment, during which his collar bone healed crooked,
twisting his shoulder into an awkward position and continuing
to cause him pain. (Id. at 7.) He states that after
he was transferred into the custody of the Tennessee
Department of Correction, his collar bone had to be re-broken
and surgery done to repair it. (Id.) Miller asserts
that he still has some pain because the bone will never be
perfectly aligned due to the delay in treatment at the Jail.
(ECF No. 12 at PageID 53-54.)
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is
appropriate “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). “[T]he burden on the moving party may be
discharged by ‘showing'-that is, pointing out to
the district court- that there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case.” Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Rule
56(c)(1) provides that “[a] party asserting that a fact
cannot be or is genuinely disputed” is required to
support that assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . .,
admissions, interrogatory answers or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or
fails to properly address another party's assertion of
fact as required by Rule 56(c)” the district court may:
(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address ...