Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180125_0000433.MAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:46:14+00:00

Document:
CORIZON HEALTHCARE, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff Lisa McKinley Tullis (“Tullis”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that while she was an inmate of the Tutwiler Correctional Facility (“Tutwiler”) in Wetumpka, Alabama, medical providers were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs. Tullis filed an amended complaint that supersedes the claims in her original complaint, as ordered by the court. Doc. Nos. 9, 15, 16, 17, 18. Tullis named three defendants in her amended complaint: Nurse Carter, Nurse Jackson, and an unnamed Pharmacist. Doc. No. 16, at 2. Tullis did not clarify if she was suing defendants in their individual or official capacities. She sought compensation for “pain suffering, mental anguish, emotional stress.” Id. at 4.
The court allowed the case to go forward against Defendants Corizon, Inc., Carter, and Jackson. Doc. No. 18. In accordance with orders of the court, Defendants Corizon (“Corizon”), LLC, Vicky Carter (“Carter”), and Lynda Jackson (“Jackson”) filed an answer, special reports, supplemental special report, and supporting evidentiary material in response to Tullis's allegations. Doc. Nos. 27, 30, 32.
The court informed Tullis that the defendants' special reports would, at some time, be treated as a dispositive motion; the court explained the proper manner in which to respond to a motion for summary judgment; and the court directed Tullis to respond to the defendants' reports. Doc. No. 33. Tullis responded. Doc. No. 34.
This case is now pending before the court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the motion, the plaintiff's response to it, and the evidentiary materials filed in support and in opposition to the motion, the court concludes that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is due to be granted.
The defendants have met their evidentiary burden and demonstrated the absence of any genuine dispute of material fact. Thus, the burden shifts to Tullis to establish, with appropriate evidence beyond the pleadings, that a genuine dispute material to the case exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(3) (“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact [by citing to materials in the record including affidavits, relevant documents or other materials], the court may . . . grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it . . . .”); see also Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega, 748 F.3d 1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 2014) (court considers facts pled in a plaintiff's sworn complaint when considering his opposition to summary judgment”). A genuine dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party produces evidence that would allow a reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg, 498 F.3d at 1263. The evidence must be admissible at trial, and if the nonmoving party's evidence “is merely colorable . . . or is not significantly probative . . . summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249- 50 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). “A mere ‘scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice . . . .” Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252). Conclusory allegations based on subjective beliefs are likewise insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1564 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Only disputes involving material facts are relevant, and what is material is determined by the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. To demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact, the party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine [dispute] for trial.'” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
“The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Although factual inferences must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and pro se complaints are entitled to liberal interpretation by the court, a pro se litigant does not escape the burden of sufficiently establishing a genuine dispute of material fact. Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus, a plaintiff's pro se status alone does not mandate this court's disregard of elementary principles of production and proof in a civil case. In this case, Tullis fails to demonstrate a requisite genuine dispute of material so as to preclude summary judgment on her claims against the defendants. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
Tullis is an inmate of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) at Tutwiler and was incarcerated at Tutwiler during the time alleged in the complaint. Defendant Jackson is a registered nurse licensed in the State of Alabama and employed by Corizon as the Director of Nursing at Tutweiler. Doc. No. 32-1 at 2. Defendant Corizon holds a contract with the ADOC to provide health care to inmates in its facilities. Id. at 2-3. Defendant Carter is a licensed practical nurse in the State of Alabama and employed by Corizon as an LPN at Tutwiler. Doc. No. 32-2, at 1.
David Gams is a medical doctor licensed in the state of Alabama and employed by Corizon at Tutwiler. Doc. No. 30-1, at 2. He is not a defendant in this case, but he submitted an affidavit in support of the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On June 13, 2015, as part of the annual vaccination plan, defendant Carter administered a tuberculosis (“TB”) skin test to Tullis. Id. at 3. Dr. Gams explains that the TB skin test determines whether a person has been exposed to TB. Id. The test consists of putting a small amount of TB protein (antigens) under the top layer of skin on the inner forearm. Id. If the person has been exposed to TB, the skin reacts by developing a firm red bump at the site within two days. Id. The TB antigens used in the test are called “purified protein derivative (PPD).” Id. at 4. The TB test cannot tell how long someone has been infected with TB or if the infection is inactive or transmittable. Id. Some people may react to the TB skin test even if they are not infected with TB. Id. Dr. Gams states, “[i]n general, there is no risk associated with repeated tuberculin skin test placements.” Id.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.