United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. McKinley Jr., District Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. [DN 38]. Plaintiff failed to file a
response to Defendants' Motion. Therefore, this matter is
ripe for review. For the following reasons, Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Todd Bonds, is a former inmate at Luther Luckett Correctional
Complex (“LLCC”). According to the Complaint, on
July 13, 2016, before being sent to the Restricted Housing
Unit, Mr. Bonds received a medical examination by Nurses
Daniel Oldaker and Shierra Brown. [DN 1 ¶ 10]. Mr. Bonds
alleges that Nurse Brown incorrectly and maliciously recorded
false blood pressure readings to ensure he would not receive
necessary medical treatment—Mr. Bonds claims his blood
pressure reached “levels of at least 225/123” and
that Nurse Brown recorded readings “such as
139/95.” [Id. ¶¶ 12-13]. In
response, Mr. Bonds states that he called for assistance and
Nurse Oldaker responded. [Id. ¶¶ 13-14].
Next, Mr. Bonds alleges that Nurse Oldaker, frustrated with
the situation, referred to him by a racial epithet and told
him that his blood pressure was normal for him. [Id.
¶ 15]. Mr. Bonds states that he did not receive medical
assistance at that time, and because his blood pressure was
so high, he began to vomit. [Id. ¶ 16].
November 16, 2016, Mr. Bonds filed a civil action against
several defendants—Nurses Daniel Oldaker, Shierra
Brown, and Dawn Patterson of Correct Care Solutions, Correct
Care Solutions (“CCS”), the Kentucky Department
of Corrections, LLCC, and Corrections Employee Sergeant Shawn
Carmin. [DN 1]. The Complaint was based on three specific
incidents during which Mr. Bonds came into contact with the
medical staff at LLCC. After an initial screening review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court dismissed
all of Mr. Bonds' claims with the exception of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment individual-capacity claims against
Nurses Oldaker and Brown. [DN 5]. These claims pertain to the
above detailed incident that occurred on July 13, 2016.
Defendants now move the Court to grant summary judgment in
their favor. [DN 38]. Mr. Bonds did not respond in a timely
fashion, so the Court issued an order stating that if Mr.
Bonds wished to file a response to the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment, he must file a motion for leave to file a
late response and attach his proposed reply within fifteen
days of the order. [DN 42]. Mr. Bonds failed to file either a
motion for leave to file a late response or a response to the
Standard of Review and Law
the Court may grant a motion for summary judgment, it must
find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the
initial burden of specifying the basis for its motion and
identifying the portion of the record that demonstrates the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the
moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party
thereafter must produce specific facts demonstrating a
genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
the Court must review the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, the non-moving party must
do more than merely show that there is some
“metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure require the non-moving party to
present specific facts showing that a genuine factual issue
exists by “citing to particular parts of 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.
Bonds' Failure to Respond
Bonds failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), “a
party who elects not to respond to a motion for summary
judgment risks having judgment entered against them if the
court finds it appropriate to do so.” Odom v.
Pheral, No. 5:12-CV-00073, 2015 WL 474318, at *4 (W.D.
Ky. Feb. 4, 2015). “Even so, a district court may not
grant summary judgment solely because the non-moving party
has failed to . . . respond to the motion within the
applicable time limit.” Id.
“‘[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still
require the moving party to demonstrate the absence of a
disputed question of material fact and a ground that would
entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of
law.'” Id. (quoting Miller v. Shore
Financial Services, Inc., 141 Fed. App'x 417, 419
(6th Cir. 2005)); see also Smallwood v. United States,
No. 10-260, 2015 WL 770363, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 23,
“[i]t is standard practice that, where a non-moving
party fails to respond to a moving party's motion,
‘the Court may accept the truth of [the movant's]
factual allegations, and determine whether [the movant is]
entitled to summary judgment' on the basis of those
accepted facts.” Bailey v. Ingram, No.
5:14-CV-279, 2018 WL 6112972, at *2 (E.D. Ky. July 26,
2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 6112953
(E.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2018) (quoting Sheils v. Jordan,841 F.Supp.2d 727, 729 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). “In this
context, ‘the trial court no longer has a duty to
search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a
genuine issue of material fact.'” Id.
(quoting Byrd v. Brandeburg,922 F.Supp. 60, 62
(N.D. Ohio ...