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.

Taylor v. Corizon

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

November 29, 2017

GREGORY A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON, NURSE MCNEW Individually and in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

          JEB ADAM CRANDALL BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS

          ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF EXHAUSTION

          HON. JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         Defendants 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.

         For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [33], is granted and Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, dkt. [27], is denied as moot.

         I. Standard of Review

         Summary 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).

         Once 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).

         The 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).

         II. Undisputed Facts

         Applying the standard set forth above, the following facts are undisputed.

         Mr. 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.

         A. Offender Grievance Process

         As an 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 ...


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.