United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 17). For the reasons
explained below, it is recommended that Defendants'
motion be granted and Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed.
claims arise from his treatment in the Special Management
Unit (“SMU”) at the Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Prison (“GDCP”) in Jackson,
Georgia. Compl. 3, ECF No. 1. He claims that on August 11,
2016, he arrived at the SMU with serious injuries including
“5 stab wounds to the head, ” “several deep
puncture wounds to the back, ” and a collapsed lung.
Compl. Attach. 1 at 3, ECF No. 1-1. Defendant Burnside, the
prison physician, told Plaintiff that he would be housed in
an observation cell “due to the seriousness of the
injuries.” Id. Plaintiff inquired about pain
medication and Defendant Burnside said Defendant Adair-a
prison nurse-would provide him with pain medication.
five days later, Defendants Burnside and Adair were making
their rounds in the SMU and Plaintiff again asked for pain
medication, telling them he “was hurting real bad and
c[ould] barely breath[e].” Id. Plaintiff
states that Defendants Burnside and Adair ignored him.
days later, Plaintiff states his “back locked up”
and “he couldn't move and was in excruciating
pain.” Id. Plaintiff was taken to medical and
examined by another prison nurse who called Defendant
Burnside and told him that Plaintiff was in “real bad
pain and his right lung was diminishing.” Compl.
Attach. 1 at 4. Plaintiff was told that Defendant Burnside
would see him the next morning. Id. Defendant
Burnside did not see Plaintiff the next morning, even though
Plaintiff's “pain was so bad that he couldn't
get his food tray.” Id.
another three days, Plaintiff notified Defendant Adair that
he was still in “excruciating pain” and that his
“wounds were bleeding through his shirt.” Compl.
Attach. 1 at 5. Plaintiff asked when Defendant Adair would
“do dressing change and clean the wounds so they
wouldn't get infected” and again requested pain
medication. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Adair
again ignored him. Id.
another week, Plaintiff's wounds again began to bleed
“real bad” leaving him in “excruciating
pain.” Id. Defendant Uglee, a prison
lieutenant, notified medical but was told “medical . .
. wasn't coming to SMU.” Id. Defendant
Burnside saw Plaintiff the next day and prescribed him pain
medication, three weeks after Plaintiff first requested help.
Compl. Attach. 1 at 6. Plaintiff continued to have issues
with pain and notified Defendants Adair and Burnside about
his symptoms multiple times. Id. At some point, it
appears Defendant Burnside stopped providing Plaintiff with
pain medication or prescribed Plaintiff with medication that
he knew was not effective. Compl. Attach. 1 at 7.
also alleges that Defendant Adair gave him the wrong
medication, causing Plaintiff to become dizzy, vomit, and
suffer from “real bad” stomach and chest pains
for approximately twenty-one hours. Id. at 9-11.
Plaintiff contends that when he informed Defendants Adair and
Uglee that he had received the wrong medication, they laughed
at him and refused to provide him with any treatment for his
symptoms. Id. at 11. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant Burnside refused to provide him with treatment
“after gaining knowledge that Nurse Adair gave
[Plaintiff] the wrong medication.” Id. at 16.
additionally asserts that he filed numerous grievances
regarding these incidents, and that on one occasion Defendant
Uglee asked him to “drop the grievance, ” and
when Plaintiff refused to do so Defendant Uglee refused to
feed Plaintiff that day. Compl. Attach. 1 at 7, 11, 14.
Plaintiff also appears to allege that Defendant Adair
intentionally gave him the wrong medication “after
gaining knowledge” that Plaintiff had filed grievances
against her. Id. at 18.
contends that Defendants' actions have violated his
constitutional rights and seeks declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, a jury
trial, and costs in this action, as well as “any
additional relief this court deems just, proper, and
equitable.” Id. at 20-21.
move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that
he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Mot. to
Dismiss 1, ECF No. 17. Defendant contends the GDCP grievance
process was deficient such that it was not actually available
to him, and, alternatively, that he did exhaust his
administrative remedies. Br. in Supp. of Resp. to Mot. to
Dismiss 11-15, 16, ECF No. 23-1. Because the Court finds that
Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, it is
recommended that Defendants' motion be granted and
Plaintiff's complaint dismissed.