Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Klyce

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

August 30, 2019

JODY WAYNE MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
TROY KLYCE, ET AL., Defendants.

          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

          JAMES D. TODD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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. §§ 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).

         The Court set out Miller's claims in the order of partial dismissal:

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. (Id.)

(ECF No. 12 at PageID 53-54.)

         Pursuant 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;[1] 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.

         “If 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.