United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. STIVERS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (DN 35) and Plaintiffs' Motion for
Summary Judgment (DN 38). The motions are ripe for
adjudication. For the reasons outlined below, Defendant's
motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's motion
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CLAIMS
time period relevant to this case, Plaintiff Todd Bonds
(“Bonds”) was a convicted state inmate residing
at the Todd County Detention Center (“TCDC”).
Bonds is forty-year-old male with a history of diabetes and
high blood pressure. (Pl.'s Reply Mot. Am. 1, DN 19). On
the evening of January 27, 2016, Plaintiff informed Defendant
Captain Fowler (“Fowler”), a correctional
officer, that he felt like he was having a heart attack.
(Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, at 13, DN 35-3). Fowler did
not call the nurse; rather, she took Bonds' vital signs
herself and recorded his blood pressure as
107/76. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, at 13).
Sometime after 11:00 PM that night, Bonds was given a medical
request form because he complained of stomach ulcers and said
he felt like he was dying. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A,
at 13). At 1:45 AM the next morning, Fowler took Bonds'
blood pressure and recorded it as 178/115. (Def.'s Mot.
Summ. J. Ex. A, at 13). Bonds contends that Fowler took his
blood pressure multiple times, told him to relax so that his
blood pressure would fall, but only recorded one of the
readings. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B, at 32, DN 35-4).
Later that morning, at 8:00 AM, the nurse arrived, checked on
Bonds, and recorded his blood pressure as 202/110.
(Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, at 13). At that point, the
nurse recommended that Plaintiff be transported to Logan
Memorial Hospital. (Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A, at 13).
February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action asserting
various claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various
parties. After an initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d
601 (6th Cir. 1997), the Court dismissed all but the claim
against Fowler based on an alleged violation of Bonds'
Eighth Amendment rights and permitted only that claim to
proceed. (Screen Order 13). Following discovery, both parties
have moved for summary judgment, which motions are ripe for
Court has subject-matter jurisdiction of this matter based
upon federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must
determine whether there is any genuine issue of material fact
that would preclude entry of judgment for the moving party as
a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The
moving party bears the initial burden stating the basis for
the motion and identifying evidence in the record that
demonstrates an absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, the
non-moving party must then produce specific evidence proving
the existence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48
the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, the non-moving party must do more
than merely show the existence of some “metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986) (citation omitted). Rather, the non-moving party must
present specific facts proving that a genuine factual issue
exists by “citing to particular parts of the materials
in the record” or by “showing that the materials
cited do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine
dispute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). “The mere
existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the
[non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there
must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for
the [non-moving party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
moving for summary judgment Defendant asserts, inter
alia, that the jail officials were not deliberately
indifferent to Bonds' serious medical needs. (Def.'s
Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 5-9, DN 35-1). Construing the
evidence in a light most favorable to Bonds, the Court
establish a claim under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff
must demonstrate “deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs of prisoners.” Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Deliberate indifference
is judged both objectively and subjectively. See Curry v.
Scott, 249 F.3d 493, 506 (6th Cir. 2001). The objective
element requires a plaintiff prove a defendant showed
deliberate indifference despite being aware plaintiff was
“incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial
risk of serious harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The ...