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.

Canary v. Ard

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

June 24, 2019

STANLEY BRENT CANARY PLAINTIFF
v.
NURSE MANDY ARD DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Joseph H. McKinley Jr., Senior Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DN 34], Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DN 40], and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DN 42]. Fully briefed, these matters are ripe for decision. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

         I. Background

         PLAINTIFF, Stanley Canary, is a former inmate at Daviess County Detention Center (“DCDC”). He asserts that on July 23, 2018, the Defendant, Nurse Mandy Ard, denied him adequate medical care after he slipped while working and injured his right shoulder and elbow. [DN 1 at 4]. He claims that both directly after his fall-around 4:00 am that day-and later that evening, he proceeded to the medical unit of the jail seeking medical care and that both times, Nurse Ard directed him to leave. [Id.]. Mr. Canary explains that after he was turned away, he filed a grievance-Grievance #298822-about his failure to receive necessary medical care. [Id. at 5, DN 40-4]. DCDC later closed Mr. Canary's grievance as unfounded. [DN 40-4].

         Mr. Canary filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Nurse Ard on August 21, 2018, less than a month after the incident at issue, alleging that Nurse Ard violated his Eighth Amendment rights. At the time of filing, Mr. Canary asserted he was in continual pain from the lack of treatment to his right arm. After discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. [DN 34, DN 40].

         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

         The Court addresses first Mr. Canary's Motion to Strike Nurse Ard's Motion for Summary Judgment and then the motions for summary judgment.

         A. Motion to Strike

         Mr. Canary filed two documents after Nurse Ard submitted her Motion for Summary Judgment-a Motion Response to Defendant's Request to Strike Plaintiff's Summary Judgment [DN 41] and a Motion to Strike Mandy Ard's Motion for Summary Judgment [DN 42]. In the latter filing, Mr. Canary asks the Court to “strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and grant summary judgment” in his favor. [Id. at 5]. Nurse Ard responds that Mr. Canary's request to strike her Motion is premised merely on his disagreement with the facts she presented and that such a basis is insufficient to strike her motion. [DN 43 at 1-2].

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). “Motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are addressed within the sound discretion of the Court, although they are generally disfavored.” Hashemian v. Louisville Reg'l Airport Auth., No. 3:09-CV-951, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59962, 2013 WL 1788473, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2013) (citing Ameriwood Indus. Intern. Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 961 F.Supp. 1078, 1083 (W.D. Mich. 1997) (internal citations omitted)). “Striking a pleading is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice.” Id. (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United States, 201 F.2d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 1953)).

         The Court can discern no merit in Mr. Canary's argument to strike Nurse Ard's Motion for Summary Judgment. Her Motion is well-supported by medical records, jail records, and affidavits. Because the arguments contained therein also relate to Mr. Canary's opposition to Nurse Ard's Motion for ...


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.