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.

Bonds v. Oldaker

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

March 1, 2019

TODD BONDS PLAINTIFF
v.
DANIEL OLDAKER, et al. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Joseph H. McKinley Jr., District Judge

         This 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.

         I. Background

         PLAINTIFF, 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].

         On 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.

         The 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 pending motion.

         II. Standard of Review and Law

         Before 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).

         Although 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.

         III. Discussion

         A. Bonds' Failure to Respond

         Mr. 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, 2015).

         However, “[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 ...


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.