Paz v. Stone et al, No. 3:2013cv00065 - Document 35 (S.D. Ga. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER denying 29 Motion ; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting re 27 Report and Recommendations. Therefore, final judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendants and this case is closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 3/9/15. (cmr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Paz v. Stone et al Doc. 35 O IGINAL R ,.ro,SF,Ffrou* COURT IN THE UNITED STATESDISTR1CT DISTRICTOF GEORGIA FORTHE SOLITHERN -9 2015lllR 9:29 ,lH ,rr^ruoofu- DUBLINDIVISION PAZ, .ItIAhIALT]ER"TO Plaintiff" cv 313-065 and Warden, STACY STACYN" STCINE, Administratot, CILES.Health Services Defbndants. ORDER After a careflil,<lenovoreviewof the file, the Courtconcurs with the Magistrate Judge's (R&R), to which objections havebeenfiled. (Dcc. nos. 31, 33.) Reportald Recommendation of by After thoroughconsideration the legalarguments the partiesand the undisputed material judgrnentbe Judgerecommended Det'endants' that motion for summary facts,the Magistrate granted.(Doc.no. 27.) the Plaintiff has submitteda rnotiou to supplernent record,(doc. no. 29). rvith nerv Plaintifi an apprt-rral ofia retluest swgerytr"v for oi'an outsideeonsultation evidence consisting and a treatmenc recorddatedNovember4, 2014 by Dr. by the utilization review committee. Edwardfltringerfrnm rvhatappears be the outsideconsuttation. to Recause Plaintiff bringsthe to motion for sumrnarv mo{ion over four monthsafter the time for responding Defendants' judgrnent passed, CourtDENIES the motion. (Doc.no. 29.) Evenif the Courtr.vere has the to it the however. consider newevidence. wouldnot change outcome, the Dockets.Justia.com reducibleright recordstateschatPlaintiff has a "4 centinleter flr. Stringer'streatment inguirul hernia" and on the left side "there is a small bui reducibleinguinalhemia." In the and Plan,"Dr. Stringer states follows: as section ofthe recordentitled"Discharge Follorv-up for the Althougtr herniaon the left is small,it is synptomatic the patient. He also With to states that it appears be enlarging.As suchrepaircanbe recomtnended. regardsto the right-sidedhemia, this is reducibleas well and is also mildly rep*.ir r.r'ould recommended. be symptomatic. Again, given symptomatology l director. Will disr:uss furthe with theprisonmedical tindingsof the many prisonevaluators Dr. In essence, Stringerconfirmstlre evalu:rtive surgery treforeliirn that both herniasare small,mild, and reducible. .Dr.Stlingerrecommends and of not because hemias are aclvanced severein nature,but insteadmerely because the Plaintiff's complaintsthat the Ieft hemia is "symptornatic" and the right hemia is "'mildly rnild narure the hemias regarding current, the of are slmptorcaaic. The findingsof f)r. Stringer " personnel, oitedancldescribed with tir€ prior findingsof prisonnredical in entirelyconsistent as of complaints the R&R.. His mereree.omrnendationsurgeryin 1hetnceof Plaintiff s subjective irtdiflbrence. Indeed,Dr. Stringer's to talls far sho( of the er.idence needed show deliberate recommendation surgery doesnot address challenge opinionolevaluatingphysician or the Dr. of and necessary .Ioan Roy fhat surger;, purell.electir.e not medicalll, is because hemiasarenot the life+hreatening hazardous Piaintiff'shealth,and"can be safelyrnanaged or to rvith medication, hernia belt,audactir.itylimitations." (Doc.nn. 19,decl.Roy,lf 8.) r.r,ere disagree Evenif Dr. Stringer to llith Dr. Roy, a positionnot at all suggested his by vaguetreatment record,thele rvouldrnerelybe a ditference medicalopinionas to the ideal in courseof treatments'hich cannotfotm the basis for a deliberateindifl'erence claim. See does the Waldrop Evqq$, F.2d 1030,1033(1lth Cir. 1989).Acccrdingly, newevidence 87i L judgnent. fact.andDet'endants eniitledto summary are of issue material norraisea genuine juris<liction over Plaintiffs clairns that Defbndants crbject the Court lackssubjeci-matter 517 F. 3d 1249(ilth Cir' and underMinneciv. Pollard,132S.Ct.617(21:)12) Alba r'. Morrtfbrd, interpretation Minecci and Alba concemthe with Del'endants' that 200B). Tlrc court disagrees jurisdiction over Plaintif?s claims under Bivensl thesecasesaddress Coutt's subject-mafier rvhethera plaintiff can state a claim for relief under Bivens r.vhenan adequatestate remedy (applyinS Pollard CiEO v. Grn..Inc.,607F.3d t2(bX6)standnrd); exists.Alba,517F.3dat 1252 rev'd 132S.Ct.617 (2012). Thus,the Courtretains subject583,588 (9th Cir. 2010)(same), juri.sdiction rule on themeritsollP.lsintiffs claimsas it still involr,es f'ederal question a matter to argument could underthe Eighth Amendment.Sge28 U.S.C.$ 1331. AlthoughDefendirnts' underFed.R. Civ. P. 12(bX6), this hasnot Plaintiffs cornplaint present hasisfor dismissing a to and beenargued, the Courtdeclines ntle on this basis. of Accordingly,ihe Court ADOPTS the Reportand Recommendation the Magistrate the Judgeas its opinion, DENIES Plaintift's motion to supplernent record, (doc. no. 29), judgrnent, (doc. no. l9), DIRI1CTSthe Llierk to Det'endants' motiot f<ir summary C;RAN'US
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
