1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Coreille Johnson, #324642,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 08-14127

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

Frederick Winn,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. BACKGROUND

On February 5, 2008, two employees at the Standish Maximum Correctional

Facility (“SMF”) escorted inmate Lorenzo Anthony to Health Services. When Anthony

was returned to his cell, his restraints were removed. Subsequently, Anthony was able

to leave his cell; walk to Plaintiff Corielle Johnson’s cell; and, throw feces, urine, and

semen on Johnson through his food slot from a cough drop bag and toothpaste tube. 

On September 25, 2008, Johnson filed a Complaint against Frederick Winn, a

staff nurse at SMF, alleging Nurse Winn was deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs following the incident with Anthony. 

Before the Court is Nurse Winn’s “Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. #57). 

Nurse Winn asks the Court to dismiss Johnson’s deliberate indifference claim. The

motion is GRANTED.
2

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) says summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In reviewing a motion for

summary judgment, “the evidence as well as all inferences drawn therefrom must be

read in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Kochins v.

Linden-Alimak, Inc., 799 F.2d 1128, 1133 (6th Cir. 1986). 

 The movant has the initial burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine

issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the movant

meets this burden, the nonmoving party must, by affidavit or otherwise as provided by

Rule 56, “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(e). A genuine issue of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The essential inquiry is “whether the evidence

presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so

one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251-52. If the

nonmoving party does not respond with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial,

summary judgment is appropriate. Emmons v. McLaughlin, 874 F.2d 351, 353 (6th Cir.

1989).

Johnson did not respond to Nurse Winn’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Nonetheless, “a district court cannot grant summary judgment in favor of a movant

simply because the adverse party has not responded.” Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451,
3

455 (6th Cir. 1991). The moving party must always bear the initial burden of

demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, even if the party fails to

respond. Id. at 454-55. “The court is required, at a minimum, to examine the movant’s

motion for summary judgment to ensure that [it] has discharged that burden.” Id. at

455.

III. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

“[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the

‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153,

173 (1976)). 

A claim for deliberate indifference contains an objective and a subjective

component. Mabry v. Antonini, 2008 WL 3820478 at **3 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008).

The objective component requires Johnson to show a “sufficiently serious”

medical need. See id. (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). A

“sufficiently serious” medical need is one that a physician has diagnosed as requiring

mandatory treatment or one that a lay person would easily recognize as needing a

doctor’s attention. Harrison v. Ash, 539 F.3d 510, 518 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations

omitted). Nurse Winn assumes that having feces thrown upon an individual could, in

certain circumstances, result in a serious medical condition.

In addition to satisfying the objective component, Johnson must prove the

subjective component as well. The subjective component requires Johnson to allege

facts that show “the official being sued subjectively perceived facts from which to infer

substantial risk to the prisoner, that he did in fact draw the inference, and that he then
4

disregarded that risk.” Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 703 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). The Court may use circumstantial

evidence to draw the inference that prison officials had the requisite knowledge. 

Comstock, 273 F.3d at 703 (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994)). 

Nurse Winn’s Affidavit says: 

3. On February 5, 2008, I was called to prisoner Johnson’s housing

unit shortly after the incident where he was assaulted with feces.

4. I talked with Mr. Johnson and then spoke with Dr. Urban at the

clinic. Dr. Urban in turn spoke with the chief physician (Regional

Medical Officer), Dr. Stieve. After discussing the incident between

the two of them[,] they concluded that there was not an exposure,

and Dr. Urban so advised me.

5. I told Mr. Johnson that Dr. Urban and the chief physician for SMF

did not consider the incident an exposure to communicable blood

borne diseases. 

6. HIV and Hepatitis A, B, and C are not transmitted by contact with

skin. HIV and Hepatitis B and C are transmitted by blood; Hepatitis

A could be transmitted by ingesting infected feces. Hepatitis A is

easily treated.

The Court finds Nurse Winn discharged his burden to demonstrate that there is

no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he knew of, and disregarded, a

substantial risk of harm to Johnson. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Nurse Winn’s motion is GRANTED. Johnson’s claim against Nurse Winn is

DISMISSED.
5

IT IS ORDERED.

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: July 1, 2010

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Corielle Johnson by electronic

means or U.S. Mail on July 1, 2010.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk