Summary
This United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin decision grants Defendant Mary Moore’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Dionte Nowels’ federal Eighth Amendment and First Amendment claims after the pro se plaintiff failed to respond within the court-extended deadline. The court determined that Moore exercised professional medical judgment in prescribing medication and lacked retaliatory intent, thereby negating deliberate indifference. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state-law medical malpractice claims, dismissing them without prejudice so they may be pursued in state court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Defendant Moore is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical care claim, First Amendment retaliation claim, and Wisconsin medical malpractice claim.
Holdings
- Summary judgment is proper because there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs or retaliated against him, and therefore the federal claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Key quotations
“If the Court does not receive Plaintiff’s response materials by August 18, 2025, the Court will accept all facts asserted by Defendant as true and will decide the motion without Plaintiff’s input.” (at 1)
“Accordingly, Moore is entitled to summary judgment on Nowels’ federal claims against her.” (at 1)
Factual background
Plaintiff Nowels, an inmate at Fox Lake Correctional Institution, alleges that Defendant Moore prescribed a pain medication knowing it would exacerbate his constipation and abdominal issues. Moore contends she exercised professional judgment, provided information about side effects, and prescribed alternative treatments. The record shows Nowels received extensive medical care while incarcerated.
Procedural history
Defendant Mary Moore filed a motion for summary judgment on May 19, 2025. Plaintiff Dionte Nowels, representing himself, failed to submit a response by the extended deadline of August 18, 2025. The court, after reviewing the motion and undisputed facts, granted summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissed the state-law claims.