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.

Pompey v. Bell

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

February 1, 2019

JERMAINE POMPEY, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. RON BELL, KIMBERLY WYNN, KAY BECK, and GEORGE W. BAYSDEN, JR., Defendants.

          ORDER

          LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the court on defendants' motions for summary judgment (DE 96, 106, 129), and plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law (DE 117). Plaintiff did not file substantive responses to the motions for summary judgment. Defendants Bell, Beck, and Baysden filed responses to plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the court grants defendants' motions for summary judgment and denies plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         On December 21, 2015, plaintiff, a state inmate, filed this civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming George W. Baysden, Jr. (“Baysden”), Kay Beck (“Beck”), Dr. Ron Bell (“Bell”), and Kimberly Wynn (“Wynn”) as defendants. Plaintiff alleged that defendants Beck, Bell, and Wynn acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff additionally alleged defendant Baysden violated his constitutional rights in the course of plaintiff's disciplinary proceedings. On May 20, 2016, the court conducted its frivolity review of plaintiff's action and allowed the matter to proceed.

         On April 28, 2017, the court entered order resolving various Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 motions filed by defendants Bell, Baysden and Beck, and defendant Wynn's first motion for summary judgment. The court granted defendant Wynn's motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed defendant Wynn without prejudice; denied defendant Bell's motion to dismiss; and granted in part and denied in part defendants Beck and Baysden's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant Baysden. The April 28, 2017, order also directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint particularizing his claims, which plaintiff timely filed. Plaintiff's amended complaint contained new allegations that defendants Wynn and Baysden were deliberately indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs.

         On November 2, 2017, the court conducted its frivolity review of plaintiff's amended complaint and reinstated plaintiff's claims against defendants Wynn and Baysden. On November 16, 2017, the court appointed North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. to conduct discovery on plaintiff's behalf pursuant to Standing Order 17-SO-03.[1] On December 11, 2017, the court entered case management order, providing that discovery closed on May 16, 2018.

         On December 18, 2017, defendant Wynn filed motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, motion ot dismiss, directed to plaintiff's amended complaint. After granting extension of time for plaintiff to respond, the court granted the motion in part, and denied it part by order dated September 6, 2018. The court granted the motion to the extent it sought dismissal of plaintiff's official capacity claims, and denied the motion in all other respects.

         After discovery closed, the parties filed the following instant dispositive motions. Defendant Bell filed motion for summary judgment on June 18, 2018, arguing the undisputed evidence establishes he was not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs. In support of the motion, defendant Bell filed memorandum of law, statement of material facts, and 357 pages of plaintiff's medical records and North Carolina Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) records.[2] On July 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a document purporting to respond to defendant Bell's motion, but the document does not substantively address defendant Bell's arguments.

         Defendant Wynn filed her second motion for summary judgment on June 27, 2018, also arguing the undisputed evidence establishes she was not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs. In support of the motion, defendant Wynn filed memorandum of law, statement of material facts, affidavit of defendant Wynn, and attached as exhibits plaintiff's DPS movement records and medical records. Plaintiff did not file response to defendant Wynn's motion.

         Plaintiff filed motion for judgment as a matter of law on August 22, 2018. Defendants Bell, Beck, and Baysden timely filed responses in opposition to plaintiff's motion.

         Defendants Beck and Baysden filed motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2018, also arguing the undisputed evidence establishes they were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs. In support of their motion, defendants Beck and Baysden filed memorandum of law, statement of material facts, affidavits of defendants Beck and Baysden, and attached as exhibits plaintiff's DPS records and certain DPS policies and procedures regarding inmate medical care. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.[3]

         STATEMENT OF FACTS

         Plaintiff was an inmate at the Tabor Correctional Institution (“Tabor C.I.”) during the relevant time period. (Compl. (DE 60) § V). Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide adequate medical care for his ingrown toenail, or by failing to respond to his requests for medical care. (Id.)

         The relevant facts concerning each defendant are set forth below. As noted, plaintiff did not file substantive responses to defendants' motions for summary judgment, and his complaints are not verified. Accordingly, the court recounts the facts as provided in defendants' affidavits, exhibits attached ...


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.