Michael Edward Allen v. Lakita Davis, et al.

Summary

This Recommended Disposition addresses Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Michael Edward Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The magistrate judge concludes that the record does not show constitutionally inadequate medical care by Defendants Davis, Bolling, or Carter and recommends granting summary judgment, dismissing the claims with prejudice, and closing the case. Objections were permitted within 14 days.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment should be granted because Allen failed to present evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Davis, Bolling, or Carter acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
2. Summary judgment should be granted for Carter because no reasonable factfinder could conclude on the record that she violated Allen's constitutional rights.
3. Summary judgment should be granted for Bolling because Allen failed to show that she knowingly disregarded a substantial risk of harm or that her conduct caused the alleged injuries.
4. Summary judgment should be granted for Davis because the evidence showed that she appropriately monitored and treated Allen and no reasonable factfinder could find deliberate indifference.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants Davis, Bolling, and Carter were entitled to summary judgment on Allen's individual-capacity claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether Allen produced sufficient evidence of causation, including verifying medical evidence or expert testimony, to create a genuine dispute concerning alleged permanent heart damage, reduced life expectancy, or increased risk of stroke or heart attack.
3. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law medical-malpractice claim after dismissal of the federal claims.

Disposition

other