1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12789 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

GEORGE LNU, et al. 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS 

(ECF ## 109, 110); (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF ## 96, 97) AS THE 

OPINIONS OF THE COURT; (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE (ECF #113); AND (4) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF ## 61, 83)

INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon (“Weatherspoon”) is an inmate in the custody 

of the Michigan Department of Corrections (the “MDOC”). In this action, 

Weatherspoon alleges that Defendants Dr. Badawi Abdellatif (“Dr. Abdellatif”) 

and Angela Vettraino (“Vettraino”) (collectively, “Defendants”) violated his 

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to 

his medical needs.1

 Dr. Abdellatif and Vettraino have moved for summary 

                                                            

1

 On August 31, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of MDOC 

Defendants Jon Pavitt, Gail Wang, Eutrilla Taylor, and Diana Hering. (See ECF 

#67.) 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 796
2 

judgment. (See ECF ## 61, 83.) The assigned Magistrate Judge has now issued 

two Reports and Recommendations (the “R&Rs”) in which he recommends that 

the Court grant summary judgment in favor of both Dr. Abdellatif (see ECF #96; 

hereinafter the “Dr. Abdellatif R&R”) and Vettraino (see ECF #97; hereinafter the 

“Vettraino R&R”). Weatherspoon has filed timely Objections to both R&Rs 

(collectively, the “Objections”). (See ECF ## 109, 110.) Weatherspoon has also 

filed a Motion to Strike the motions for summary judgment filed by Vettraino and 

Dr. Abdellatif. (See ECF #113.) For the reasons explained below, the Court 

OVERRULES Weatherspoon’s Objections in their entirety, ADOPTS both of the 

R&Rs as the Opinions of the Court, DENIES Weatherspoon’s Motion to Strike, 

and GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants Dr. Abdellatif and 

Vettraino. 

FACTS RELEVANT TO WEATHERSPOON’S OBJECTIONS

 In January 2013, the MDOC housed Weatherspoon at the Kinross 

Correctional Facility (the “KCF”). On January 18, 2013, Weatherspoon was 

treated for leg pain by KCF physician Dr. Ramesh Kilaru (“Dr. Kilaru”). Dr. 

Kilaru observed that Weatherspoon had a lump on his left leg, and he advised 

Weatherspoon of the “benign nature of the lesion.” (ECF #85-1 at 17, Pg. ID 613.) 

Dr. Kilaru prescribed Weatherspoon over-the-counter pain medication, and he 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 2 of 14 Pg ID 797
3 

listed February 2, 2013, as the date on which Weatherspoon should stop taking that 

medication. (See id. at 17-18, Pg. ID 613-14.) 

On or around January 28, 2013, the MDOC transferred Weatherspoon to the 

Macomb Correctional Facility (the “MRF”). (See Dr. Abdellatif Decl., ECF #83-2 

at ¶ 5, Pg. ID 578; ECF #85-1 at 18, Pg. ID 614.) When Weatherspoon arrived at 

the MRF, he received a medical examination from a physician’s assistant. The 

physician’s assistant noted that Weatherspoon had a “history of thigh pain and [a] 

‘lump’,” and the physician’s assistant advised Weatherspoon to purchase over-thecounter pain medication from the prison store. (Id. at 19, Pg. ID 615.) 

Three days later, on January 31, 2013, Dr. Abdellatif and Vettraino (an 

MDOC registered nurse) performed another medical examination of 

Weatherspoon. (See Pl.’s Resp. Br., ECF #76 at 4, Pg. ID 515; Dr. Abdellatif 

Decl., ECF #83-2 at ¶ 6, Pg. ID 578.) Dr. Abdellatif observed that Weatherspoon’s 

medical records indicated that the lump on Weatherspoon’s thigh was benign, and 

Dr. Abdellatif did not see any indications that Weatherspoon’s condition had 

worsened since his prior evaluations. (See Dr. Abdellatif Decl., ECF #83-2 at ¶ 6, 

Pg. ID 578.) At the conclusion of the examination, Dr. Abdellatif “suggested that 

Weatherspoon attempt to control his pain with the [400 milligrams of Motrin] he 

had been prescribed.” (Id.) Weatherspoon “verbalized [his] understanding” of Dr. 

Abdellatif’s recommendation. (See ECF #85-1 at 20, Pg. ID 616.) 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 3 of 14 Pg ID 798
4 

On March 9, 2013, Dr. Abdellatif saw Weatherspoon again after 

Weatherspoon claimed that he needed a bottom bunk accommodation due to the 

pain in his leg. (See id. at 24, Pg. ID 620.) Dr. Abdellatif examined Weatherspoon 

and noted that the lump on Weatherspoon’s thigh felt “like a thight [sic] muscle 

cord.” (Id.) Dr. Abdellatif also observed that Weatherspoon had a normal range of 

motion, that he was able to bend his leg at the knee without difficulty, and that the 

lump was not painful when palpitated. (See id.) And despite Weatherspoon’s 

claims that he suffered from intractable pain in his leg, Weatherspoon refused to 

give the nurse a pain rating when asked. (See id.) The MDOC subsequently 

denied Weatherspoon’s request for a bottom bunk accommodation. 

 The next day, Weatherspoon sought medical attention on two separate 

occasions for chest pain. (See id. at 25-30; Pg. ID 621-26.) But when 

Weatherspoon arrived for treatment, he did not complain of any chest pain. 

Instead, he again requested a bottom bunk accommodation (which the MDOC had 

previously denied), and a referral to an outside specialist to examine the lump on 

his left leg. (See id. at 26, 32, Pg. ID 622, 628.) Dr. Abdellatif determined that 

Weatherspoon did not require an outside evaluation, and he prescribed 

Weatherspoon 325 milligrams of acetaminophen for his leg pain. (See Dr. 

Abdellatif Decl., ECF #83-2 at ¶ 10, Pg. ID 580.) 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 4 of 14 Pg ID 799
5 

Dr. Abdellatif performed his final evaluation of Weatherspoon on April 8, 

2013. During that visit, Weatherspoon complained that swelling had spread to his 

lower right leg, and he claimed that his pain began radiating to his thigh, back, and 

chest. (See ECF #85-1 at 37, Pg. ID 633.) But Dr. Abdellatif observed no change 

in the lump on Weatherspoon’s leg, and he continued the same course of treatment. 

(See id. at 39, Pg. ID 639.) 

 On April 29, 2013, the MDOC transferred Weatherspoon from the MRF, 

and he was no longer under the care of Dr. Abdellatif or Vettraino after that time. 

(See id. at 40-41, Pg. ID 640-41.) 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. The Claims 

Weatherspoon filed this action on July 3, 2014. (See Compl., ECF #1.) 

Weatherspoon alleges, among other things, that Dr. Abdellatif and Vettraino 

violated his Eighth Amendment rights by showing deliberate indifference to his 

medical needs. (See id.) 

B. Vettraino’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the R&R With Respect 

to Vettraino’s Motion 

On August 4, 2015, Vettraino filed a motion for summary judgment. (See

ECF #61.) Weatherspoon responded to Vettraino’s motion on October 8, 2015. 

(See ECF #76.) On December 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued the Vettraino 

R&R in which he recommended that the Court grant summary judgment in favor 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 5 of 14 Pg ID 800
6 

of Vettraino (See Vettraino R&R, ECF #97.) In the Vettraino R&R, the 

Magistrate Judge concluded that (1) there is undisputed evidence on the record 

establishing that Vettraino provided medical care to Weatherspoon, and (2) 

Weatherspoon simply disagrees with the course of Vettraino’s treatment. (See id.

at 7-8, Pg. ID 725-26.) 

On February 23, Weatherspoon filed objections to the Vettraino R&R and a 

motion to strike her motion for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 110, 113.) 

Weatherspoon argues that Vettraino showed deliberate indifference to his medical 

needs by delaying and/or preventing his access to medical care. (See id.) 

Specifically, Weatherspoon claims that Vettraino blocked his access to a physician 

at the MRF on January 31, 2013, and refused to provide him with pain medication 

on that date. (See id. at 1, Pg. ID 755.) Weatherspoon also objects that Vettraino 

continued to deny him access to a physician and pain medication until March 10, 

2013. (See id. at 2, Pg. ID 756.)2

                                                            

2

 Weatherspoon also objects that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined that 

he (Weatherspoon) failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (See ECF #110 

at 3, Pg. ID 757.) But the Magistrate Judge never concluded that Weatherspoon 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Instead, the Magistrate Judge 

assumed without deciding that Weatherspoon did exhaust his administrative 

remedies. (See Dr. Abdellatif R&R, ECF #96 at 4 n.2, Pg. ID 711; Vettraino R&R, 

ECF #97 at 4 n.3, Pg. ID 722.) Accordingly, the Court overrules Weatherspoon’s 

objection based upon the Magistrate Judge’s purported conclusion that 

Weatherspoon failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 6 of 14 Pg ID 801
7 

C. Dr. Abdellatif’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the R&R With 

Respect to Dr. Abdellatif’s Motion 

On October 28, 2015, Dr. Abdellatif filed a motion for summary judgment. 

(See ECF #83.) Weatherspoon responded to Dr. Abdellatif’s motion on November 

23, 2015. (See ECF #90.) On December 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued the 

Dr. Abdellatif R&R in which he recommended that the Court grant summary 

judgment in favor of Dr. Abdellatif. (See Dr. Abdellatif R&R, ECF #96.) 

In the Dr. Abdellatif R&R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that 

Weatherspoon failed to present evidence that Dr. Abdellatif acted with deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs. (See id.) The Magistrate Judge noted that Dr. 

Abdellatif treated Weatherspoon for his leg pain on multiple occasions and 

provided him with pain medication. (See id. at 8-9, Pg. ID 716.) The Magistrate 

Judge further explained that Weatherspoon’s deliberate indifference claim failed 

because it rested upon Weatherspoon’s mere disagreement with the course of Dr. 

Abdellatif’s treatment. (See id.) 

On February 23, Weatherspoon filed objections to the Dr. Abdellatif R&R 

and a motion to strike his motion for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 109, 113.) 

Weatherspoon argues that Dr. Abdellatif was deliberately indifferent to his medical 

needs. (See id.) He insists that Dr. Abdellatif “had knowledge, information, and 

aware [sic] of the facts Plaintiff Weatherspoon had a serious medical need which 

required treatment from specialist [sic] and or surgical removal” and that 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 7 of 14 Pg ID 802
8 

“Defendant Abdellatif intentionally deprived or delayed access to medical care” 

and to pain medication. (Id. at 1, Pg. ID 751.) 

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD

 This Court reviews de novo the portions of the R&Rs to which a party has 

objected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

A movant is entitled to summary judgment when it “shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact . . . .” SEC v. Sierra Brokerage Servs., Inc.,

712 F.3d 321, 326–27 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)) (quotations omitted). When reviewing the record, “the 

court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party 

and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Id. “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 

[that party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Summary judgment is not appropriate 

when “the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a 

jury.” Id. at 251-252. Indeed, “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the 

evidence, and the drafting of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury 

functions, not those of a judge . . . .” Id. at 255. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 8 of 14 Pg ID 803
9 

ANALYSIS

A. Deliberate Indifference Framework 

The Court analyzes Weatherspoon’s deliberate indifference claims against 

Dr. Abdellatif and Vettraino under the same legal framework. There are two 

components to an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, one objective 

and the other subjective. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); see 

also Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001). To satisfy the 

objective component, the plaintiff must show “that the medical need at issue is 

‘sufficiently serious.’” Comstock, 273 F.3d at 702 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). To satisfy the subjective component of a deliberate 

indifference claim, the plaintiff must show “that the official being sued 

subjectively perceived facts from which to infer substantial risk to the prisoner, 

that [s]he did in fact draw the inference, and that [s]he then disregarded that risk.” 

Id. 

 In the R&Rs, the Magistrate Judge did not explicitly determine whether the 

lump on Weatherspoon’s leg and the associated pain he experienced constituted a 

“sufficiently serious” medical need. Instead, the Magistrate Judge stated that 

“[e]ven assuming that the lump on Weatherspoon’s left leg was ‘sufficiently 

serious’ to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, 

Weatherspoon has failed to establish the subjective element of such a claim.” (Dr. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 9 of 14 Pg ID 804
10 

Abdellatif R&R, ECF #96 at 8, Pg. ID 715.) Accordingly, the Court will assess 

whether Weatherspoon established the subjective component of the deliberate 

indifference framework.3

 

B. The Magistrate Judge Correctly Determined that Vettraino is Entitled 

to Summary Judgment on Weatherspoon’s Deliberate Indifference 

Claim 

 The evidence in the record does not support Weatherspoon’s contention that 

Vettraino prevented him from seeing a physician on January 31, 2013, or at any 

other time while he was incarcerated at the MRF. In fact, the available evidence 

shows just the opposite. Weatherspoon’s January 31, 2013, medical records4

 show 

that Vettraino assisted Dr. Abdellatif during a medical examination of 

Weatherspoon three days after Weatherspoon arrived at the MRF. (See ECF #85-1 

                                                            

3

 Nonetheless, the Court has performed a thorough review of Weatherspoon’s 

medical records and is skeptical that Weatherspoon has met the objective 

component of the deliberate indifference standard lth. Two medical doctors – Dr. 

Kilaru and Dr. Abdellatif – determined that the lesion on Weatherspoon’s left leg 

was benign. (See ECF #85-1 at 17, Pg. ID 613; Dr. Abdellatif Decl., ECF #83-2 at 

¶ 6, Pg. ID 561.) Furthermore, both Dr. Kilaru and Dr. Abdellatif treated 

Weatherspoon’s pain with over-the-counter medication. (See id.) Medical records 

also indicate that Weatherspoon had a full range of motion in his left leg and was 

frequently smiling during his examinations. (See ECF #85-1 at 17, 32, Pg. ID 613, 

628.) Weatherspoon has offered only bare assertions, without evidentiary support, 

that his pain posed a serious and significant threat to his health. 

4 Weatherspoon has made numerous allegations that Dr. Abdellatif, Vettraino, or 

the MDOC falsified his medical records and that the Magistrate Judge therefore 

erred by relying on them. (See Objections, ECF #109 at 3, Pg. ID 753; ECF #110 

at 5, Pg. ID 759.) Weatherspoon has provided no support for these allegations and 

the Court therefore rejects them. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 10 of 14 Pg ID 805
11 

at 20, Pg. ID 616.) Dr. Abdellatif also provided a declaration to the Court 

affirming that he treated Weatherspoon on January 31, 2013. (See Dr. Abdellatif 

Decl., ECF #83-2 at ¶ 6, Pg. ID 561.) And Weatherspoon has not identified any 

evidence in the record showing that Vettraino ever blocked his access to Dr. 

Abdellatif (or any other prison physician or healthcare professional) at any other 

time while he was incarcerated at the MRF. 

 Weatherspoon also has not provided any evidence showing that Vettraino 

prevented him from obtaining pain medication (whether on January 31, 2013, or at 

any other time while he was incarcerated at the MRF). If anything, the evidence 

establishes that Vettraino had no say in Weatherspoon’s pain management 

regimen. On January 31, 2013, Dr. Abdellatif – not Vettraino – instructed 

Weatherspoon to attempt to control his pain with the over-the-counter medication 

he had already been prescribed when he arrived at the MRF. (See Dr. Abdellatif 

Decl., ECF #83-2 at ¶ 6, Pg. ID 561.) And during a later medical consultation, a 

physician’s assistant at the MRF informed Weatherspoon that he could purchase 

over-the-counter pain medication from the prison store. (See ECF #85-1 at 19, Pg. 

ID 615.) Weatherspoon has not presented any evidence that Vettraino played any 

role in determining or influencing the type or amount of pain medication that was 

provided to him. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 11 of 14 Pg ID 806
12 

 For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Weatherspoon’s objections to 

the Vettraino R&R. 

C. The Magistrate Judge Correctly Determined that Dr. Abdellatif is 

Entitled to Summary Judgment on Weatherspoon’s Deliberate 

Indifference Claim 

There is no evidence that Dr. Abdellatif deprived Weatherspoon of, or 

delayed his access to, medical care or pain medication. Instead, the evidence 

shows that Dr. Abdellatif provided Weatherspoon with a “competent and 

conscientious course of medical treatment” for his leg pain. Selby v. Martin, 84 

Fed. App’x 496, 499 (6th Cir. 2003). 

 Dr. Abdellatif began his course of treatment by reviewing Dr. Kilaru’s prior 

medical assessments of Weatherspoon. Dr. Kilaru had concluded that the lesion on 

Weatherspoon’s leg was benign and stated only that the lesion could be aspirated 

“if it gets worse.” (ECF #85-1 at 17, Pg. ID 613.) When Dr. Abdellatif physically 

examined the lesion on January 31, 2013, he concluded that the lesion had not 

worsened since Dr. Kilaru’s assessment and did not require aspiration. (See Dr. 

Abdellatif Decl., ECF #83-2 at ¶ 10, Pg. ID 580.) And when Dr. Abdellatif 

evaluated Weatherspoon again on March 10, 2013, his opinion about the lesion did 

not change. (See id.) Weatherspoon has not presented any evidence that Dr. 

Abdellatif subjectively recognized, and then disregarded, any serious medical risk 

posed by Weatherspoon’s thigh lesion. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 12 of 14 Pg ID 807
13 

Weatherspoon has also failed to show that Dr. Abdellatif denied him pain 

medication. Dr. Abdellatif provided Weatherspoon with a prescription for 325 

milligrams of Tylenol to take up to three times a day after examining him on 

March 10, 2013. (See id. at ¶ 9, Pg. ID 580; see also ECF #85-1 at 32, Pg. ID 

628.) Dr. Abdellatif continued the same course of treatment after he evaluated 

Weatherspoon on April 8, 2013, and concluded that his condition had not 

worsened. (See Dr. Abdellatif Decl., ECF #83-2 at ¶ 11, Pg. ID 581.) 

Weatherspoon simply has not pointed to any evidence that Dr. Abdellatif was 

deliberately indifferent to his (Weatherspoon’s) pain. 

 At bottom, Weatherspoon simply disagrees with the course of treatment 

prescribed by Dr. Abdellatif. Disagreement with a physician’s course of treatment, 

however, is not sufficient to show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. 

See Selby, 84 Fed. App’x at 499. And in cases where “the record demonstrates that 

the inmate received medical attention and is, in essence, filing suit because he 

disagrees with certain decisions made by the medical staff, the defendant is entitled 

to summary judgment.” Allison v. Martin, 2009 WL 2885088, at *6 (E.D. Mich. 

Sept. 2, 2009) (citing McFarland v. Austin, 196 Fed. App’x 410, 411 (6th Cir. 

2006)). 

 For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Weatherspoon’s objection to 

the Dr. Abdellatif R&R. 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 13 of 14 Pg ID 808
14 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons provided above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 Weatherspoon’s Objections (ECF ## 109, 110) are OVERRULED in their 

entirety; 

 The Magistrate Judge’s R&Rs (ECF ## 96, 97, 107) are ADOPTED as the 

Opinions of the Court; 

 Weatherspoon’s Motion to Strike (ECF #113) is DENIED; 

 Defendant Vettraino’s motion for summary judgment (ECF #61) is 

GRANTED; and 

 Defendant Dr. Abdellatif’s motion for summary judgment (ECF #83) is 

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 30, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on March 30, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 119 Filed 03/30/16 Pg 14 of 14 Pg ID 809