United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
GREGORY A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
CORIZON, NURSE MCNEW Individually and in her Official Capacity, Defendants.
ADAM CRANDALL BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF EXHAUSTION
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE
Gregory A. Taylor, an offender incarcerated within the
Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”), filed
this lawsuit on February 21, 2017. Mr. Taylor alleges that on
September 12, 2016, while an inmate at the New Castle
Psychiatric Center, he broke his foot and defendant Nurse
McNew refused to provide him appropriate care and delayed his
access to medical treatment. He further alleges that
defendant Corizon failed to schedule and provide timely
treatment for his foot injury.
seek resolution of this action through summary judgment.
Defendants assert that they are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law because Mr. Taylor failed to exhaust his
available administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a), before filing this lawsuit.
reasons explained below, Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, dkt. , is granted and
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, dkt. ,
is denied as moot.
Standard of Review
judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to a 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). “The applicable substantive law
will dictate which facts are material.” National
Soffit & Escutcheons, Inc., v. Superior Systems,
Inc., 98 F.3d 262, 265 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248).
the moving party has met its burden, the non-movant may not
rest upon mere allegations. Instead, “[t]o successfully
oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party
must come forward with specific facts demonstrating that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Trask-Morton
v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir.
2008). “The non-movant will successfully oppose summary
judgment only when it presents definite, competent evidence
to rebut the motion.” Vukadinovich v. Bd. of Sch.
Trs., 278 F.3d 693, 699 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in
the non-movant's favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634
F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).
the standard set forth above, the following facts are
Taylor was incarcerated at New Castle Correctional Facility,
Psychiatric Unit (“NCCF”) at the time his foot
was injured. He was transferred to Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility (“Wabash Valley”), where he is currently
incarcerated, on February 14, 2017.
Offender Grievance Process
inmate incarcerated with the IDOC, the Offender Grievance
Process has been available to Mr. Taylor. The purpose of the
Offender Grievance Process is to provide administrative means
by which inmates may resolve concerns and complaints related
to their conditions of confinement. All offenders are made
aware of the Offender Grievance Process during orientation to
the IDOC and at the facilities. Further, copies of the
Offender Grievance ...