United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge
reasons explained in this Entry, the defendant's motion
for summary judgment [dkt. 24] is granted.
plaintiff in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action
is Adam Howe (“Mr. Howe”), an inmate who at all
relevant times was confined at the Pendleton Correctional
Facility (“Pendleton”). The defendant is Nurse
Stacia Hoover Frazee (“Nurse Hoover”). In his
second amended complaint, Mr. Howe alleges that Nurse Hoover
was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. He seeks a declaratory
judgment and all other proper relief.
defendant seeks resolution of the plaintiff's claims
through summary judgment. The plaintiff has responded to the
defendant's motion for summary judgment and the defendant
has replied. The motion is ripe for resolution.
Summary Judgment Standard
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
non-moving 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).
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).
basis of the pleadings and the portions of the expanded
record that comply with the requirements of Rule 56(c)(1),
construed in a manner most favorable to Mr. Howe, the
non-movant, the following facts are undisputed for purposes
of the motion for summary judgment:
he was confined at Pendleton on August 30, 2014, Mr. Howe
injured his left wrist playing handball outdoors. Nurse
Hoover saw Mr. Howe in the Pendleton clinic. Based on her
examination, Nurse Hoover suspected Mr. Howe may have
fractured his left wrist and that he would require outside
medical attention in the emergency room. After Nurse Hoover
obtained approval from the on-call medical provider, Dr.
Michael Person, Mr. Howe was immediately transported to St.
Vincent Anderson Regional Hospital (“St.
Vincent”) for further evaluation of his wrist injury.
Howe's wrist was evaluated by emergency room physicians
at St. Vincent. His x-ray results showed a non-displaced
closed radial styloid fracture of his left wrist. A
non-displaced fracture is a fracture in which the bone
remains aligned. The St. Vincent emergency room medical
providers stabilized the fracture with a glass thumb spica
cast and ace wrap and prescribed pain medication. They did
not recommend surgery. It was recommended that Mr. Howe keep
it elevated, ice for swelling and pain, wear the splint, and
have a follow up visit with an orthopedic provider the
following week. Mr. Howe was returned to Pendleton at
approximately 6:30 p.m. on August 30, 2014.
September 3, 2014, Mr. Howe was seen by Dr. Person for follow
up. Dr. Person continued the prescription for Norco (a
narcotic pain reliever) for an additional five days and
ordered that his meals be delivered to his cell for 30 days.
Dr. Person also noted in his ...