Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04144/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

DLD-098 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-4144

___________

TRACY WATTS,

Appellant

v.

DR. MICHAEL J. HERBIK, Doctor; CHRIS MEYER, (P.A.)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-07-cv-00824)

District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 14, 2010

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 9, 2010 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Tracy Watts, a Pennsylvania state inmate, appeals pro se from orders by the

District Court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because the appeal

presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

Case: 09-4144 Document: 003110016750 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2010
2

Tracy Watts filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

that he was not properly treated after undergoing testicular surgery. On December 4,

2006, Watts had surgery to repair a hyrdocele in his testicle and claims that afterwards, he

experienced pain and difficulty walking and should have been given a wheelchair and/or

crutches to ambulate without pain. As a result of swelling, Watts claimed that he had to

have a hematoma surgically removed on January 15, 2007. He named the prison’s health

care administrator, Robert Tretinik; Dr. Michael Herbik; and a physician assistant, Chris

Meyers, as defendants in his suit.

Defendant Tretinik filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Watts failed to

name him in any grievance, and thus his claims were procedurally defaulted. Watts filed

an amended complaint, which the District Court permitted, and defendant Tretinik filed

another motion to dismiss with documentation showing that Watts’s amended claims

were still procedurally defaulted. The District Court agreed, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218 (3d

Cir. 2004). Defendants Herbik and Meyers also filed a motion to dismiss the amended

complaint; however the District Court found that Watts had sufficiently alleged Eighth

Amendment claims against both defendants. Watts’s remaining claims under the

Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments were dismissed.

Defendants Herbik and Meyers subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment

on Watts’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim. Based on the evidence provided by the

Case: 09-4144 Document: 003110016750 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2010
3

defendants, and the fact that Watts had adduced no evidence whatsoever, the District

Court granted the motion for summary judgment. Watts timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. See Kaucher

v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 2006). 

As an initial matter, we agree with the District Court’s dismissal of Watts’s § 1983

claim against defendant Tretinik. The PLRA requires that a prisoner exhaust any

available administrative remedies before bringing a federal claim concerning prison

conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Nyhuis v. Reno, 204 F.3d 65, 67 (3d Cir. 2000). This

requirement includes a procedural default component. Spruill, 372 F.3d at 234. Per

institutional policy, inmates must exhaust administrative remedies and “identify any

persons who may have information that could be helpful in resolving the grievance.” Id.

at 234 (citing Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections policy). As Watts failed to

mention Tretinik in his administrative grievance and did not place him on notice of

alleged wrongdoing, Watts procedurally defaulted all claims against him. 

Turning to defendants Herbik and Meyers, summary judgment is proper if the

record demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). To overcome summary

judgment, the non-moving party must “set out specific facts” and present more than a

“mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in his favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248, 252 (1986). If the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient

Case: 09-4144 Document: 003110016750 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2010
4

showing establishing an element of his claim that is essential to his case and on which he

will bear the burden of proof at trial, then the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

To show a violation under the Eighth Amendment, Watts must show “(1) that the

defendants were deliberately indifferent to [his] medical needs and (2) that those needs

were serious.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). This requires Watts to demonstrate that prison

officials had a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

834 (1994). Specifically, Watts must show that prison officials knew of an excessive risk

to his health or safety and affirmatively disregarded that risk. Id. at 837-38. 

Defendants provided by affidavit and Watts’s medical records that Watts received

care and treatment for his testicular problems. Although Watts claims that he should have

been issued crutches or a wheelchair after his December surgery, defendant Herbik

attested that neither was medically indicated. Nevertheless, medical records show that

Watts was provided with crutches after the removal of the hematoma in January, and that

he was given treatment after both the surgery and hematoma removal, including pain

medication and additional medical attention. Watts provides no evidence to support the

objective or subjective elements of his Eighth Amendment claims, and on this absence of

evidence alone, defendants are entitled to summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at

323. His mere denials of facts do not merit the rejection of defendants’ summary

Case: 09-4144 Document: 003110016750 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/09/2010
5

judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2) (“an opposing party may not rely merely

on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must – by affidavits or as

otherwise provided in this rule – set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial”). 

Furthermore, even viewing the record in a light most favorable to Watts, at most, he may

have stated a claim that defendants acted negligently, which does not amount to an Eighth

Amendment violation. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. Accordingly, a grant of summary

judgment was proper. 

As Watts’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm the

District Court judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 09-4144 Document: 003110016750 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/09/2010