United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Macon Division
PROCEEDINGS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 BEFORE THE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles H. Weigle United States Magistrate Judge
the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Dixon and Kitchens. (Doc. 46). Plaintiff failed to
respond to this motion despite receiving repeated prompts
from the Court to do so, and despite receiving two extensions
of time. (Docs. 48, 49, 52). As discussed below, no evidence
suggests that Plaintiff suffered from any objectively serious
medical need or that the Defendants' conduct rose to the
level of deliberate indifference. Accordingly, the Defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff's
Eighth Amendment claims. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment be GRANTED.
before the Court is a motion to compel filed by Plaintiff
Willie James Terrell Jr. (Doc. 55). For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
alleges that he was assaulted by other prisoners on July 22,
2017, resulting in possible injuries to his chest, right
elbow, and left hip, along with ensuing headaches, cuts,
bruises, and a swollen ankle. (Compl., Doc. 1, p. 5). At a
follow-up appointment with prison medical professionals at
Washington State Prison on August 3, Plaintiff was referred
for “Further assessment for CT [and] xray of hip [and]
elbow, [and for] evaluation of chest pain.” (Doc.
46-9). In particular, Washington State Prison medical
authorities wanted to rule out the possibility of any
factures or internal bleeding. (Docs. 46-10, 46-11).
Plaintiff was transported to the Washington County Regional
Medical Center (“WCRMC”), where he was admitted
at around 1:15 PM on August 3, 2017. (Doc. 46-11, p. 3).
There, three x-rays were taken of Plaintiff's elbow,
which showed some soft-tissue swelling but no fractures or
displacement of “fat pads.” (Doc. 46-11, p. 14).
Two x-rays were also taken of Plaintiff's pelvis, and
they revealed intact bones, uniform and symmetrical joints,
and normal soft-tissue outlines. (Doc. 46-11, p. 15).
Finally, a chest x-ray showed normal heart size and vascular
pattern, as well as normal “osseous structures”
with regard to all visualized bones. (Doc. 46-11, p. 17). Two
ribs - Plaintiff's “posterior first and second
ribs” - “were not fully imaged” on the
WCRMC chest x-ray. (Id.). No. cranial imaging was
conducted at the WCRMC, even though medical sources noted
“some swelling in the occipital region of [Plaintiff]
scalp” upon examination. (Doc. 46-11, p. 5).
Plaintiff's treatment at the WCRMC, Plaintiff was
“Transfer[red] to Augusta University, ” (Doc.
46-11, p. 5), where CT imaging was available. See
(Pl.'s Dep.) (Doc. 46-22, p. 8) (“At [the WCRMC],
their CT scan didn't work”) A CT scan of
Plaintiff's head was “negative for any intracranial
processes, ” and a scan of Plaintiff's neck was
also “negative for any abnormality.” (Doc. 46-16,
p. 4). A second x-ray of Plaintiff's chest “rule[d]
out broken ribs.” (Id.). The record indicates
that these medical images were obtained between 8:30 and 9:00
PM on the evening of August 3. (Doc. 14-16, pp. 6-10).
Plaintiff was discharged from the Augusta University Medical
Center around 10:00 PM, (Doc. 46-20, p. 1), and he returned
to Washington State Prison either late that night, (Doc.
46-22, p. 31), or early the next morning. (Doc. 46-21, p. 1).
A medical intake note from Washington State Prison reads:
“Inmate states he is fine.” (Id.).
his treatment on August 3, Plaintiff claims that the
Defendants attempted to interfere with his ability to obtain
necessary medical imaging. At the WCRMC, for example,
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants “didn't
understand why I needed both …x-rays and a CT scan,
and … that [I] was blowing the State's budget, and
that I should refuse one or the other because it's too
much radiation.” (Pl.'s Dep.) (Doc. 46-22, p. 18).
Later, at the August University Medical Center, Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants “had a verbal disagreement
with the medical staff” because the staff initially
“told me they had to do the x-rays over.”
(Id., pp. 9-10). Eventually, Augusta University
medical staff opted “to [re]do the chest x-ray only,
” along with “a CT [scan] of [Plaintiff's]
head down to my spine.” (Id., p. 12).
Plaintiff claims that one physician “seemed upset that
[the Defendants] weren't allowing [other] x-rays to be
done and didn't want a CT” scan. (Id.).
Plaintiff further claims that the Defendants expressed
frustration that Plaintiff was “holding [them] up,
” because the Defendants “want[ed] to be home
before five p.m.” (Id., p. 13).
asked at his deposition how the Defendants' actions
harmed him, Plaintiff answered that his hip continues to hurt
due to a suspected hairline fracture, (Doc. 46-22, pp.
19-20), that he “might have [had] a fracture or some
type of break in my arm [that] probably healed, ”
(Id., p. 20), and that he continues to suffer from
pain in his head, neck, back and chest. (Id., p.
43). According to Plaintiff, if the Defendants had allowed
for adequate medical imaging, then Plaintiff “could
have gotten medical treatment sooner, ” and in
particular he “could have gotten [physical] therapy
sooner.” (Id., p. 19).
MOTION TO COMPEL
has filed a document titled “objection to
Defendants['] irregularity in the handling of the
deposition in conjunction with a motion to compel Defendants
to submit Plaintiff's errata sheet changes.” (Doc.
55). This motion is DENIED.
30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for a
30-day period in which a deponent may review his deposition
transcript and make certain changes thereto. Plaintiff took
advantage of this review period, see (Doc. 55, p. 2)
(“Plaintiff's corrections made on 14
January”), and the Defendants have now provided
Plaintiff's errata sheets. (Doc. 56-1, pp. 4-5). This
Recommendation has given full consideration to
Plaintiff's asserted errata.
appears to seek additional time in which to compare his
deposition transcript with “the actual evidence [of]
the original audiotaped recording of the oral
examination.” (Doc. 55, p. 3). This request is improper
for two reasons. First, although Plaintiff's motion is
dated February 6, 2019, Plaintiff did not deposit that motion
in the mail until over two months later, in mid-April, 2019.
(Doc. 55-1, p. 1). Based on this delay, it cannot be said
that Plaintiff acted “promptly” after any errors
or irregularities in his deposition became “known or,
with reasonable diligence, could have been known.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 32 (d)(4). Second, Plaintiff articulates no
specific grounds to impugn the integrity of the transcription
process, and Plaintiff's filings suggest that his motion
is merely a dilatory tactic, or an attempted means of
extended the Rule 30(e) review period for arguably
impermissible purposes. See, e.g., Norelus v.
Denny's, Inc., 628 F.3d 1270, 1281 (11th
Cir. 2010) (“A deposition is not a take home
examination'). Accordingly, and notwithstanding
Plaintiff's objections, this Recommendation has
considered Plaintiff's deposition testimony in evaluating
the merits of the Defendant's motion for summary
STANDARD FOR ...