Powell v. Medical Department Cuyahoga County Correctional Center et al, No. 1:2017cv01302 - Document 59 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 8/8/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, grants the doctor defendants' motion for summary judgment and denies as moot plaintiff's motion to compel video footage. Because this resolves the last of plaintiff's claims, his complaint is dismissed with prejudice. (Related Docs. 35 , 36 , 51 , and 55 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Powell v. Medical Department Cuyahoga County Correctional Center et al Doc. 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------------------: : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : MEDICAL DEPARTMENT CUYAHOGA : COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, et al., : : Defendants. : : ----------------------------------------------------------------------CARLIN UPTON POWELL, Case No. 1:17-cv-1302 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 35, 36, 51, 55] : JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff Carlin Powell is a pre-trial detainee in the Cuyahoga County Correctional Center.1 He has filed this lawsuit against a variety of defendants alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.2 Th— Court has pr—v“ously –—scr“b—– Pow—ll s ‘actual all—’at“ons3 and will not describe them a’a“n h—r—. Su‘‘“c— “t to say th— Court has alr—a–y –“sm“ss—– all o‘ Pla“nt“‘‘ Pow—ll s cla“ms —xc—pt ‘or his claim that several doctors who service the Correctional Center unconstitutionally denied him medication.4 Those Doctor Defendants now move for summary judgment on that claim.5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, [s]ummary ”u–’m—nt “s prop—r wh—n th—r— “s no genuine dispute as to any material fact an– th— movant “s —nt“tl—– to ”u–’m—nt as a matt—r o‘ law. 6 The moving party must first demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact entitling it to judgment.7 Once the moving party has done so, the non-moving party must set forth specific 1 Doc. 10 at 1. 2 See generally Doc. 1. Doc. 42; Doc. 52. 4 Doc. 42 at 9. The Doctor Defendants are Doctor John Yourself; Doctor Alan Gatz; Doctor Rekha Ujla; Doctor Albert Coreno; Doctor Leslie Koblentz; and Doctor Thomas Tallman. Doc. 1 at 2. 5 Doc. 51. Plaintiff Powell opposes. Doc. 55. The Doctor Defendants reply. Doc. 57. 6 Killion v. KeHE Distribs., LLC, 761 F.3d 574, 580 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). 7 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 3 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:17-cv-1302 Gwin, J. facts in the record not its allegations or denials in pleadings showing a triable issue.8 The nonmoving party must show more than some doubt as to the material facts in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment.9 But the Court views the facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the non-moving party.10 When parties present competing versions of the facts on summary judgment, a district court adopts the non-movant s v—rs“on o‘ th— ‘acts unl—ss “ncontrov—rt“bl— —v“–—nc— “n the record directly contradicts that version.11 Otherwise, a district court does not weigh competing evidence or make credibility determinations.12 With their motion for summary judgment, the Doctor Defendants show evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff Powell received medical treatment, including some medication, a referral to physical therapy, and multiple consultations. 13 Plaintiff Powell has produced no admissible evidence in response to th— D—‘—n–ants evidence. While Powell has produced statements contesting th— accuracy o‘ th— Doctor D—‘—n–ant s —v“–—nc—, non— o‘ thos— stat—m—nts ar— sworn or declared to be given under penalty of perjury. As a result, they cannot be considered at the summary judgment stage.14 Plaintiff Powell has also produced evidence demonstrating that he has had back surgery and other medical treatment in the past. 15 But that evidence obviously does not show whether he received proper treatment at the Correctional Center. And to the extent that Powell believes that he 8 See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (2018). Id. at 586. 10 Killion, 761 F.3d at 580 (internal citations omitted). 11 See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). 12 Koren v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1032, 1037 (N.D. Ohio 2012) (citing V & M Star Steel v. Centimark 9 Corp., 678 F.3d 459, 470 (6th Cir. 2012)). 13 Doc. 51-1. This evidence also defeats any surviving argument that the Correctional Center is not a suitable facility under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. 14 Worthy v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co. , 472 F. App x 342, 343 45 (6th Cir. 2012); Little v. BP Exploration & Oil Co. , 265 F.3d 357, 363 n.3 (6th Cir. 2001); Dole v. Elliot Travel & Tours, Inc. ¸942 F.2d 962, 968 69 (6th Cir. 1991). 15 Doc. 39. -2- Case No. 1:17-cv-1302 Gwin, J. should have received better care, his claim sounds in medical malpractice rather than the Eighth Amendment.16 Plaintiff Powell also requests video footage from the prison to demonstrate that he did not receive the medical treatment at the times the Doctor Defendants claim.17 But however helpful that evidence might be at trial, the Court does not believe that it should delay its summary judgment ruling based on this request. Plaintiff Powell could have avoided summary judgment by submitting sworn evidence, including his own sworn declaration or affidavit, contradicting the Doctor D—‘—n–ants account o‘ —v—nts. H— –“– not –o so. For those reasons, the Court GRANTS th— Doctor D—‘—n–ants mot“on ‘or summary ”u–’m—nt and DENIES AS MOOT Pla“nt“‘‘ Pow—ll s mot“on to comp—l video footage.18 Because this resolves the last of Plaint“‘‘ Pow—ll s cla“ms, h“s compla“nt “s DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Dated: August 8, 2018 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 See Dotson v. Wilkinson, 477 F. Supp. 2d 838, 848 49 (N.D. Ohio 2007) ( [D]ifferences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel regarding the appropriate medical diagnoses or treatment are not enough to state a deliberate indifference claim. This is so even if the misdiagnosis results in an inadequate course of treatment and considerable suffering. Finally, where a prisoner has received some medical attention, but disputes the adequacy of that treatment, the federal courts are reluctant to second-guess the medical judgments of prison officials and constitutionalize claims that sound in state tort law. (“nt—rnal c“tat“ons om“tt—–)); see also Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 703 (6th Cir. 2001) ( When a prison doctor provides treatment, albeit carelessly or inefficaciously, to a prisoner, he has not displayed a deliberate indifference to the prisoner's needs, but merely a degree of incompetence which does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. ). 17 Doc. 55-1 at 5 6. 18 To the extent it is still pending, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT Pla“nt“‘‘ Pow—ll s requests for a medical examination or other discovery. Doc. 35, 36. Furth—rmor—, th— Court –o—s not constru— Pow—ll s compla“nt to hav— ra“s—– any state-law claims (such as medical malpractice), but to the extent it was intended to the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. -3-
]]>
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.
