United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHEN HYLES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Defendants Fye, McLaughlin, and
Robinson's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 45) and
Plaintiff's motions seeking appointed counsel (ECF No.
47), leave to amend his complaint (ECF No. 52), and an order
to compel Defendants to provide information (ECF Nos. 58,
60). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff's motions
are denied and it is recommended that Defendants' motion
for summary judgment be granted.
claims concern his medical treatment while imprisoned. He
alleges multiple instances of inadequate medical care by
Defendants, including the following:
1) Defendant Robinson being unresponsive to Plaintiff's
need for dental care since January 2016, which led to
Plaintiff experiencing a great deal of pain, “bad acid
reflux, ” and difficulty eating.
2) Dr. Fye refusing to treat Plaintiff with Harvoni, a new
Hepatitis-C drug that has a 96% cure rate and no
3) Warden Gregory McLaughlin denying multiple grievances
which Plaintiff filed concerning his medical treatment,
refusing to help Plaintiff despite being aware of his need
for dental and medical treatment, and allowing Plaintiff to
be held in a dangerous cell and permitting “violation
of emergency transport” rules.
Compl. 3, 7, 11, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff named the following
Defendants in his original complaint: 1) Dr. Fye; 2) Dr.
Robinson; 3) Gregory McLaughlin; 4) the Georgia Department of
Corrections (“GDC”); 5) unknown medical and
dental providers for Macon State Prison; 6) Phoebe Sumter;
and 7) Dr. Barbara Dalrymple. Following preliminary
screening, only Plaintiff's deliberate indifference
claims against Defendants Robinson, Fye, and McLaughlin
remain. Order adopting R. & R. 3, ECF No. 23. On April
26, 2018, Plaintiff was granted permission to amend his
complaint with information clarifying the identity of
previously unnamed Defendants. Order, 1-2, ECF No. 34.
However, Plaintiff then sent a letter to the Court explaining
that the information concerning newly identified Defendants
was intended for a different suit he was a party to. Letter
1, ECF No. 41. On May 7, 2018, the Court construed
Plaintiff's letter as a notice of voluntary dismissal
against the newly identified Defendants and dismissed them.
Text-Only Order, ECF No. 42. Defendants moved for summary
judgment on June 1, 2018, arguing that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that they are entitled to
qualified immunity from all of Plaintiff's claims. Br. in
Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. 1-2, ECF No. 45-1.
judgment may be granted only “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In determining whether a genuine
dispute of material fact exists to defeat a motion
for summary judgment, the evidence is viewed in the light
most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment,
drawing all justifiable inferences in the opposing
party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A fact is material if it
is relevant or necessary to the outcome of the suit.
Id. at 248. A factual dispute is genuine if
the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a
verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
party moving for summary judgment bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion  and identifying those portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact.” Jones v. UPS Ground
Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted) (alterations in
original). “The burden then shifts to the non-moving
party to rebut that showing by producing affidavits or other
relevant and admissible evidence beyond the pleadings.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “The non-moving party does not satisfy its
burden if the rebuttal evidence is merely colorable, or is
not significantly probative of a disputed fact.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
Local Rule 56, a non-movant must respond “to each of
the movant's numbered material facts[, and] [a]ll
material facts contained in the moving party's statement
which are not specifically controverted by specific citation
to the record shall be deemed to have been admitted, unless
otherwise inappropriate.” M.D. Ga. L. R. ...