Howard Washington v. M. Uddin, M.D.

Summary

These Findings and Recommendations address Defendant M. Uddin’s unopposed motion for summary judgment in Howard Washington’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs following injuries to his left eye. The court concludes that the undisputed evidence does not establish deliberate indifference or causation attributable to Dr. Uddin and recommends granting summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim. It also recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence claim.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment should be granted to Defendant because the undisputed evidence showed no actionable delay attributable to Defendant and no evidence that any delay caused further injury.
2. Summary judgment should be granted to Defendant because the undisputed evidence did not show that changing Plaintiff's prescription to Tylenol 3 or tapering pain medication was medically unacceptable or undertaken in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff's health.
3. The court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence claim because no federal claim remained.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim based on an alleged delay in follow-up ophthalmic care.
2. Whether Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim based on changing and tapering his pain medication.
3. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law negligence claim after disposition of the federal claim.

Disposition

other