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.

McGlocklin v. FNU Blankenship

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division

April 26, 2017

MIKE MCGLOCKLIN, Plaintiff,
v.
FNU BLANKENSHIP and G. DURAND, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          JOHN E. STEELE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court upon the following:

Defendant Karen Blankenship's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 44, filed November 18, 2016);
Defendant Gail Durand's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45, filed November 18, 2016);
Plaintiff's response in opposition to the motions for summary judgment (Doc. 62, filed March 31, 2017); and
Defendant Blankenship's and Defendant Durand's Reply (Doc. 63, filed April 10, 2017).

         For the reasons given in this Order, the motions for summary judgment filed by the defendants (Doc. 44; Doc. 45) are GRANTED, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

         I. Background and Procedural History

         Plaintiff initiated this action on October 2, 2015 by filing a pro se complaint against Defendants Karen Blankenship and Gail Durand Clarke (Doc. 1).[1] Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 16) is the operative complaint before the Court. Both Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint (Doc. 21; Doc. 22), and on March 4, 2016, the parties were directed to conduct discovery (Doc. 31).

         Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment on April 18, 2016, and attached numerous documents in support of their motions (Doc. 43; Doc. 44; Doc. 45). Plaintiff was directed to respond to the motions (Doc. 46). Plaintiff was cautioned that: (1) his failure to respond to the motions would indicate that they were unopposed; (2) all material facts asserted by the defendants would be considered admitted unless controverted by proper evidentiary materials; and (3) Plaintiff could not rely solely on the allegations of his pleadings to oppose the motions (Doc. 46) (citing Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir. 1985)). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the defendants' motions on March 31, 2017 (Doc. 62). Despite the aforementioned warning, Plaintiff did not attach any evidentiary materials to his response.

         II. Pleadings

         a. Amended Complaint

         The allegations against Defendant Nurse Blankenship in Plaintiff's amended complaint are directed towards the allegedly insufficient medical treatment he received after he fell from his bunk on February 9, 2015 (Doc. 16 at 7-8). Plaintiff bumped his head on the back of the toilet when he fell. Id. at 9. Plaintiff asserts that, after he fell, he was taken to the medical department where Defendant Blankenship completely refused to provide treatment. Id. at 7. He asserts that Defendant Blankenship told him that she was going to write in Plaintiff's medical records that nothing was wrong with him and that she did not care if he told anybody because they would believe her over him. Id. He was taken back to confinement where he was, once again, assigned a top bunk. Plaintiff asserts that he still gets headaches and dizziness, and suffers from pain in his left shoulder and left elbow. Id. at 9. He gets cramps in his lower back, and suffers pain in his spine, legs, and feet. Id.

         Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Nurse Durand are less clear. He asserts that she does not provide adequate responses to his numerous medical grievances, and continuously tells him that the medical professionals who examined him after his fall from his bunk did not order follow up appointments (Doc. 16 at 9). Plaintiff further states that “both nurses” have told him that he did “bad” on his eye exam and that they would schedule him for glasses because he failed the eye exam. Id. He asserts that, before he fell from his bunk, he had 20/20 vision, but now it is difficult for him to see far away or close up. Id. He can no longer see small numbers close-up, and when he tries to read, it makes his eyes water and turn red. Id. Plaintiff claims that his eyes are in a lot of pain. Id.

         As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to order Charlotte Correctional Facility to ensure that he is examined by a qualified physician and a “neurologist who specializes in the care and treatment of chiropractic neurology, specialize, CAT scan, MRI.” (Doc. 16 at 11). He also asks that the Court arrange for him to be seen by an eye specialist, and any other follow-up care. Id. Plaintiff further demands an indefinite and permanent bottom bunk pass, a back brace, a knee brace, a walking cane, a CAT scan, and an MRI. Id. at 10. He also wants to be transferred to a different facility that has better medical care. Id.

         In addition to the requested injunctive relief, Plaintiff seeks one million dollars for his eye damage; $750, 000 from each defendant due to their refusal to provide medical treatment; $750, 000 from each defendant because of Plaintiff's emotional injuries; and $750, 000 from each defendant in punitive damages (Doc. 16 at 13).

         b. Motions for Summary Judgment

         Defendants Blankenship and Duran have filed similar motions for summary judgment (Doc. 44; Doc. 45). Both defendants urge that Plaintiff has not demonstrated an objectively serious medical need and that, even if Plaintiff was able to demonstrate an objectively serious medical need, he has ...


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.