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.

Webb v. Strode

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

October 12, 2017

JEFFERY ALLEN WEBB PLAINTIFF
v.
JACKIE STRODE, Jailer; SOUTH HEALTH PARTNERS; and WARREN COUNTY, KENTUCKY DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          GREG N. STIVERS, JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 25), and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (DN 26, 27). The motions are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons outlined below, Defendants' motions are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

         I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND CLAIMS

         This lawsuit arises from claims by Plaintiff Jeffery Allen Webb (“Webb”) during his incarceration at the Warren County Regional Jail (“WCRJ”). In the pro se Complaint, Webb asserts violations of his Eighth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warren County Jailer Jackie Strode (“Strode”) and Southern Health Partners (SHP) “Administrator/MTA” Jamie Pruitt (“Pruitt”). (Compl. 2, DN 1).

         Webb alleges that Defendants denied him medical treatment for “serious chronic and progressive back pain arising from spinal fractures dating back to 2004.” (Compl. 4). He claims that two months prior to his incarceration at WCRJ, “[he] was afforded 30 days of Mobic, a non-steroidal pain medication, by Trent the Nurse Practitioner. This worked well but [he] [was] told by staff that Southern Health Partners [] doesn't treat chronic pain.” (Compl. 5). Webb asserts that he was given ibuprofen for “2-5 day periods sporadically” and was told for months that he was on the list to see the SHP doctor “but they had no idea when he will come.” (Compl. 5).

         After performing an initial review of this case, the Court allowed his Eighth Amendment claims to proceed. Following discovery, the parties have moved for summary judgment, which are ripe for decision.

         II. JURISDICTION

         This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction of this matter based upon federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In 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 (1986).

         While 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 252.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment

         Defendants move for summary judgment on the bases, inter alia, that Webb has failed to prove deliberate indifference or any detrimental effects arising from any alleged delay in treatment. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Summ. J. 5-7, DN 26-1; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. 5, DN 27). Defendants also seek summary judgment because Plaintiff 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.