Meeks v. Murphy, et al, No. 1:2020cv01734 - Document 59 (E.D. Wis. 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge William C Griesbach on 10/26/2022 granting Defendants' 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. The case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(Griesbach, William)

Download PDF

Meeks v. Murphy, et al Doc. 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN JERRY J. MEEKS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 20-C-1734 PATRICK MURPHY, MD and DAWN PROEHL, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Jerry Meeks, who is representing himself, is proceeding on Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Dr. Patrick Murphy and Dawn Proehl based on allegations that they were deliberately indifferent to his severe leg pain. On September 9, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 53. In a notice and order, the court reminded Meeks that under Civil L. R. 56(b)(2) his response materials were due on October 11, 2022. Dkt. No. 58. The court warned Meeks that, if he failed to respond to the motion by the deadline, the court would accept all facts asserted by Defendants as undisputed, which would likely result in summary judgment being granted in Defendants’ favor and the case being dismissed. Meeks’ deadline to respond was more than two weeks ago, and he has not responded to Defendants’ motion. The court has reviewed Defendants’ motion, brief in support, and the undisputed facts, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), and concludes that they are entitled to summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). Based on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Defendants and deemed true as a result of Meeks’ failure to respond, the court concludes that Proehl properly triaged Meeks’ requests for medical attention and repeatedly referred him to medical professionals to attend to his Case 1:20-cv-01734-WCG Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 2 Document 59 Dockets.Justia.com needs. Moreover, the undisputed evidence shows that Dr. Murphy was not responsible for rescheduling appointments and was unaware that Meeks’ appointments had been rescheduled multiple times. Accordingly, no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Meeks’ leg pain. Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law and their motion must be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 53) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 26th day of October, 2022. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge This order and the judgment to follow are final. Plaintiff may appeal this court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4. This court may extend this deadline if a party timely requests an extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being able to meet the 30-day deadline. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If Plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the appeal’s outcome. If Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, he must file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with this Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). Plaintiff may be assessed another “strike” by the Court of Appeals if his appeal is found to be nonmeritorious. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). If Plaintiff accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to file an action in federal court (except as a petition for habeas corpus relief) without prepaying the filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in imminent danger of serous physical injury. Id. Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment. Any motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time, generally no more than one year after the entry of judgment. The Court cannot extend these deadlines. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2). A party is expected to closely review all applicable rules and determine, what, if any, further action is appropriate in a case. 2 Case 1:20-cv-01734-WCG Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 2 Document 59

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.