Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-00936/USCOURTS-alnd-5_19-cv-00936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

ERSKINE LEON HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 5:19-cv-0936-LCB-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on January 31, 2020, 

recommending the defendants’ motions for summary judgment be granted and this 

action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 30). The magistrate judge advised the 

plaintiff of his right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days. 

(Id.). On March 9, 2020, the court received untimely objections from the plaintiff. 

(Doc. 31). Because the plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court has considered the 

objections as if they had been timely filed. 

The plaintiff’s objections lack merit. He failed to provide any evidence or 

argument in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, although provided an 

opportunity to do so. (Doc. 29). He states he requested a lower bunk profile in May 

2018 due to back pain (doc. 31 at 1), but fails to acknowledge that request was 

granted (doc. 24-2 at 12-14). Although the plaintiff asserts he was provided 

FILED

 2020 Apr-23 PM 03:12

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:19-cv-00936-LCB-JEO Document 32 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 4
2

medication which did not stop his pain (doc. 31 at 1), his medical records reflect that 

when the plaintiff first complained of neck pain in September 2018, he was sent for 

an x-ray. (Doc. 24-2 at 18-20). He was prescribed Motrin, and two weeks later, 

reported the Motrin helped his pain. (Doc. 24-2 at 21). The plaintiff’s statement 

that Dr. Gulati failed to provide effective treatment is wholly contradicted by these 

medical records. 

In his objections, the plaintiff asserts for the first time that on three occasions, 

he showed up “at the emergency room, sometimes in a wheelchair, because I needed 

something for the pain.” (Doc. 31 at 2). The plaintiff claims an unnamed nurse 

yelled at him to stop coming up there at night because they could do nothing for his 

pain. (Id.). The plaintiff failed to raise this fact in his original, first amended, or 

second amended complaint, fails to name any individual who told him this, and fails 

to assert a date on which this occurred.1

 Even if properly brought, the plaintiff would 

not be entitled to relief on this vague assertion. See gen., Richardson v. Johnson, 

 1

 In his original complaint, the plaintiff named only Jefferson Dunn and the Alabama Department 

of Corrections and brought generalized claims concerning his conditions of confinement. (Doc. 

1). Because the plaintiff alleged no condition or incident which caused an injury to him, the court 

provided him with an opportunity and instructions to file an amended complaint which set forth 

viable claims. (Doc. 7). The plaintiff’s first amended complaint again named Jefferson Dunn, and 

added Warden Estes and Corizon Health Care. (Doc. 8). Therein, he asserted only that each 

defendant failed to provide needed medication. (Id.). The court therefore allowed the plaintiff to 

file another amended complaint, again explained how to bring a viable claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, and even instructed the plaintiff that to the extent he was attempting to bring a claim for 

deliberate indifference to his medical needs, he must name the individual responsible for not 

providing his medication. (Doc. 9). The plaintiff then filed his second amended complaint (doc. 

10), which raised the claims considered in the report and recommendation. (Doc. 30) 

Case 5:19-cv-00936-LCB-JEO Document 32 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 4
3

598 F.3d 734, 737 (11th Cir. 2010). The medical records did reflect that on March 

26, 2019, the plaintiff was told he could not get any medication, and that he had 

failed to pick up the prescriptions he did have. (Doc. 24-3 at 4, 6). However, he 

was again referred to a medical provider and prescribed Naproxen for his back pain. 

(Doc. 24-2 at 21). 

The plaintiff acknowledges he was prescribed Mobic, but asserts it was not 

available to him for “another 1-3 months.” (Doc. 31 at 2). He claims Dr. Gulati first 

prescribed it in March 2019, but the first mention of Mobic in the medical records 

appears in July 2019, in conjunction with his referral for further x-rays due to his

complaints of pain.

2

 (Doc. 24-3 at 14, 16). 

The plaintiff’s remaining objections concern general prison conditions, which 

were not raised by the plaintiff prior to his objections, and a new claim that Mobic 

“has serious side effects which could result in damage to my stomach or other 

organs.” (Doc. 31 at 3). The plaintiff states only that he put in a sick call slip in 

February 2020 to talk to the doctor to determine “where we go from here.” (Id.). 

Nothing in this statement, or in the plaintiff’s objections as a whole, reflect “a failure 

 2

 While the plaintiff may be relying on Dr. Gulati’s affidavit to support this contention, that 

affidavit merely noted the plaintiff was seen by an RN on March 29, 2019, and referred for further 

treatment. (Doc. 24-1 at 4). Dr. Gulati then states the plaintiff was written prescriptions for a 

double mattress profile and Mobic. (Id.). Nowhere does Dr. Gulati state those prescriptions were 

written in March, and the medical records reflect this actually occurred in July 2019. (Doc. 24-3 

at 10, 14). 

Case 5:19-cv-00936-LCB-JEO Document 32 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 4
4

to respond to a known medical problem” or treatment which is so cursory as to 

amount to no treatment at all. See Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030, 1033 (11th 

Cir. 1989); Ross v. Corizon Medical Services, 700 F. App’x 914, 916 (11th Cir. 

2017) (citing McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999)). 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the 

court file, including the report and recommendation and the plaintiff’s objections 

thereto, the objections are OVERRULED, the magistrate judge’s report is

ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court EXPRESSLY 

FINDS that there are no genuine issues of material fact and the defendants are 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the defendants’ motions for 

summary judgment (docs. 24 and 28) are due to be granted and this action is due to 

be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

A Final Judgment will be entered.

DONE and ORDERED April 23, 2020.

 _________________________________

 LILES C. BURKE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:19-cv-00936-LCB-JEO Document 32 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 4