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.

Gore v. Corizon

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

February 7, 2017

JERRY A. GORE, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON, DR. WILLIAM WOLFE, NURSE CHRISTINE MEYER,

          ENTRY DISCUSSING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

          Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge

         Plaintiff Jerry Gore (“Mr. Gore”), an Indiana prisoner incarcerated at the Pendleton Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants Corizon Health (“Corizon”), Dr. William Wolfe, and Nurse Christine Meyer were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need for treatment of heat stroke in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a response in opposition and the defendants have replied. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 126] is granted.[1]

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment is appropriate “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.” In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the admissible evidence presented by the non-moving party must be believed and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant's favor. Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487, 490 (7th Cir. 2007); Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (“We view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.”). However, “[a] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial.” Hemsworth, 476 F.3d at 490. Finally, the non-moving party bears the burden of specifically identifying the relevant evidence of record, and “the court is not required to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001).

         II. Undisputed Facts

         Construed in a manner most favorable to Mr. Gore, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of summary judgment:[2]

         At all times relevant to the allegations in his complaint, Mr. Gore was incarcerated at Pendleton.

         Dr. Wolfe was a treating physician at Pendleton but was employed by Corizon. Corizon is the private company that contracts with the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) to provide health care to inmates at certain IDOC facilities. Nurse Meyer was employed by Corizon as a registered nurse working at Pendleton.

         Heatstroke occurs when an individual's body temperature rises rapidly and the person is unable to cool down. Heatstroke can occur without any previous heat-related condition, such as heat exhaustion. Heatstroke signs and symptoms include:

• Fever of 104 F or greater
• Changes in mental status or behavior, such as confusion, agitation, or slurred speech
• Hot, dry skin or heavy sweating
• Nausea and vomiting
• Flushed skin
• Rapid pulse
• Rapid breathing
• Headache
• Fainting, which may be the first sign in ...

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.