United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
OPINION AND ORDER
E. STEELE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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).
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.
Background and Procedural History
initiated this action on October 2, 2015 by filing a pro
se complaint against Defendants Karen Blankenship and
Gail Durand Clarke (Doc. 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).
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.
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.
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
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
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).
Motions for Summary Judgment
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 ...