United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
D. WHITTEMORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is Defendants', David Gee,
Hillsborough County Sheriff and Naphcare, Inc.'s Motion
for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. 49). The time fox pro
se Plaintiff to respond to the Motion for Summary
Judgment has passed and the Motion is deemed
unopposed. The Motion for Summary Judgment is
asserts claims for damages and declaratory relief against
Defendants David Gee, the Sheriff of Hillsborough County,
Florida, and Naphcare, Inc.,  under 42 U.S.C. §1983, based
on alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that on February 2, 2016, he was not treated for
severe chest pain because Defendants have a custom or policy
not to provide medical treatment to prisoners and detainees
at the Hillsborough County Jail (HCJ). Defendants argue that
they are entitled to summary judgment because: 1) Plaintiff
failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing
this action; 2) there is no evidence that Defendants have a
custom or policy that was the moving force behind the alleged
failure to treat Plaintiffs chest pain; and 3) there is no
evidence that medical personnel were deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiffs medical needs.
February 2, 2016, Plaintiff was arrested at approximately
11:45 a.m. (Dkt. 17, p. 5). He was taken to HCJ
(Id.). While in booking, he was medically evaluated
at 12:50 p.m. by Paramedic Dempsey (Dkt. 49-3, p. 31). His
vital signs were essentially normal, except his blood
pressure was slightly elevated (Id.). Plaintiff was
cleared for placement in general housing (Id.). At
2:51 p.m., he was evaluated for a mental health screening
(Id.). At 2:53 p.m., he underwent TB screening
(Id., p. 32). At 3:05 p.m., he underwent a
"Food Service Worker Clearance"evaluation during
which his vital signs were normal, except that his blood
pressure was slightly elevated (Id.).
approximately 4:35 p.m., Plaintiff informed medical staff
that he "was having excruciating chest pain" (Dkt.
17, p. 5; Dkt. 49-1, p. 160). An EKG was performed, which was
negative (Dkt. 17, p. 5; Dkt. 49-1, pp. 34, 146). Plaintiff
was returned to a holding cell (Dkt. 49-1, p. 34).
approximately 7:28 p.m., an officer observed Plaintiff
sleeping in the holding cell (Dkt. 49-1, p. 34). The officer
entered the holding cell and saw that Plaintiff was shaking
and foaming at the mouth (Id.). Plaintiff was
transported on a stretcher to the medical clinic
(Id.). While being transported, Plaintiff was able
to answer. questions and turn his head to "avoid
aspirating secretions----" (Id.). At the
medical clinic he reported pain on the left side of his chest
(Id.). Examination revealed no heart palpitations or
murmur (Id.). He had a second EKG at approximately
8:25 p.m., which was negative (Dkt. 49-1, p. 147). He was
admitted to the medical clinic for observation and blood work
was ordered (Dkt. 49-1, p. 34).
February 3, 2016, at approximately 11:47 a.m., Plaintiffs
vital signs were taken, and he expressed no complaints and
showed no signs of distress (Id.). An x-ray was
taken of his chest (Id., p. 149). At approximately
4:16 p.m., Plaintiffs vital signs were taken and were
"stable and within normal limit." (Id., p.
33). Plaintiff stated that his chest pain was
February 4, 2016, at approximately 10:24 a.m., Plaintiffs
vital signs were taken, and he voiced no complaints
(Id.). At approximately 12:30 p.m., Plaintiffs vital
signs were "stable, " he reported that he was
"feeling better, " and he was released from the
medical clinic (Id., pp. 32-33).
February 3, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a "Health Care
Complaint" in which he: (1) complained about the
treatment he received on February 2, 2016, after he reported
his chest pain; and (2) asserted that he had fallen while
attempting to get in his bed in the medical clinic
(Id., p. 160). A medical staff member responded to
the Complaint on February 4, 2016 (Id.). The Health
Care Complaint form indicated, in pertinent part, that
"If you are unsatisfied with the response, request a
'Health Care Services Grievance Form' from health
services staff (Id.). Plaintiff did not file a
grievance regarding the alleged inadequate treatment for his
chest pain on February 2, 2016 (Dkt. 49-4, p. 5).
APPLICABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW
judgment is proper if, following discovery, the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits and
admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).
"An issue of fact is 'material' if, under the
applicable substantive law, it might affect the outcome of
the case." Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co.,
357 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (11th Cir. 2004). "An issue of
fact is 'genuine' if the record taken as a whole
could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving
party." Id. at 1260. All the evidence and
factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157
(1970); Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d
1250, 1280 (11th Cir. 2004).
party properly makes a summary judgment motion by
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings
through the use of affidavits, depositions, answers to
interrogatories and admissions on file, and designate
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24. The evidence