Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Long v. Rohana

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

September 2, 2014

BOBBY RAY LONG, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. MARCEL ROHANA, Defendant.

ENTRY DISCUSSING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.

For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendant's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 83] must be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

The plaintiff in this civil rights action is Bobby Ray Long ("Long"), a former inmate at the Marion County Jail ("the Jail"). The sole remaining defendant is Dr. Marcel Rohana ("Dr. Rohana").[1]

Long alleges in his amended complaint that he was denied pain medication and back surgery while he was a pretrial detainee at the Jail.

Dr. Rohana seeks resolution of Long's claims through the entry of summary judgment. Long has opposed the motion for summary judgment.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A "material fact" is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must set forth specific, admissible evidence showing that there is a material issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-finder. O'Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011).

A dispute about a material fact is genuine only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then there is no "genuine" dispute. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

III. Discussion

A. Undisputed Facts

On the basis of the pleadings and the portions of the expanded record that comply with the requirements of Rule 56(c)(1), and giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment:

In 2006, Long fell off a ladder and injured his back. He initially received care for the injury at Indianapolis Community Hospital East, but he started going to the VA Hospital for care in 2010. His primary care physician at the VA Hospital prescribed a number of drugs, including Albuterol, Vicodin, Cyclobenzaprine, and Naproxen. In March 2011, his physician diagnosed degenerative disc change in the spine causing mild spinal stenosis at L5-S1 and L3-L4 and moderate spinal stenosis at T11/T12. In April or May of 2011, VA Hospital physicians recommended that Long undergo a lumbar laminectomy. The procedure was scheduled to occur on August 2, 2011, but was "bumped back" to August 17, 2011, because someone else's surgery was more urgent.

On August 4, 2011, Long was arrested and charged with battery and intimidation for his role in a bar fight that occurred on July 30, 2011. When Long was taken to the Indianapolis Arrest Processing Center, Kamiya Quarles ("Quarles") helped him fill out an intake questionnaire relating to his medical history. In response to questions regarding his prescriptions, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.