United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
W. FLANAGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
OF THE CASE
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.
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
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. On December 11, 2017, the court entered
case management order, providing that discovery closed on May
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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