United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
MICHAEL E. HENDRICKS, Plaintiff,
WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC, et al. Defendants.
ENTRY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING FINAL
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
Michael Hendricks, who at all relevant times was incarcerated
at Pendleton Correctional Facility (“PCF”),
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
defendants Nurse Rebecca Davis, Dr. Paul Talbot, and Wexford
of Indiana (“Wexford”), alleging that the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
defendants now move for summary judgment on the merits of Mr.
Hendricks's claims. Nurse Rebecca Davis seeks judgment as
to allegations regarding her treatment of Mr. Hendricks on
March 25, 2017, when Corizon, LLC, was the medical service
provider for PCF. Dkt. 55. Dr. Paul Talbot and Wexford seek
judgment as to allegations regarding Mr. Hendricks's
treatment after April 1, 2017, when Wexford had assumed the
role as PCF's medical service provider. Dkt. 58.
Hendricks has not responded to the defendants' motions,
and the time to do so has passed, leaving the defendants'
motions unopposed. For the reasons explained, the
defendants' unopposed motions for summary judgment, dkt.
 and dkt. , are granted.
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 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).
noted above, Mr. Hendricks failed to respond to the
defendants' motion for summary judgment. The consequence
is that Mr. Hendricks has conceded the defendants'
version of the events. See Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d
680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ailure to respond by the
nonmovant as mandated by the local rules results in an
admission.”). The local rule provides:
A party opposing a summary judgment motion must . . . file
and serve a response brief and any evidence . . . that the
party relies on to oppose the motion. The response must . . .
identif[y] the potentially determinative facts and factual
disputes that the party contends demonstrate a dispute of
fact precluding summary judgment.
S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56-1 This does not alter the standard
for assessing a Rule 56 motion, but it does “[r]educ[e]
the pool” from which the facts and inferences relative
to such a motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129
F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
the following facts, unopposed by Mr. Hendricks and supported
by admissible evidence, are accepted as true. Although the
defendants present substantial evidence, the Court sets forth
only the facts necessary to resolve Mr. Hendricks's
claims given the unopposed nature of the defendants'
March 25, 2017, Mr. Hendricks was playing basketball at PCF
when he jumped for a rebound, landed on another player's
foot, and felt a pop when his foot twisted. Dkt. 16 at 3. Mr.
Hendricks was in extreme pain and was sent to the medical
unit in a wheelchair because he could not walk. Id.
at 3-4. Nurse Rebecca Davis treated him that day. She took
his vital signs; wrapped his ankle in an elastic bandage;
requested a two-day medical lay-in (for meals and medications
to be delivered to his cell); and gave him Tylenol, ice
compresses, crutches, and the use of a wheelchair.
Id. at 4-5; dkt. 56-1 at ¶¶ 6-7. Mr.
Hendricks requested that she recommend he be moved to a
bottom bunk, and she advised him that she did not have the
authority to issue a bottom bunk pass. Dkt. 16 at 5. She
recommended he return for further evaluation, including for a
possible referral for a bottom bunk, in two days. Dkt. 56-1
at ¶ 7. Nurse Davis attested that she provided Mr.
Hendricks's name to the nursing and doctor sick call list
so that they would put his name on the list for a follow-up
visit. Id. at ¶ 9.
Hendricks's name apparently never made it to the sick
call list. Dkt. 16 at 5. Mr. Hendricks was not called for a
medical appointment on March 26, 2017, so on March 27, 2017,
he asked a correctional officer to contact medical about his
injury because he had not yet received a medical pass.
Id. at 5-6. That officer called medical, and they
advised him he was not on the call list and would not be seen
on March 27, but he would be on the list for March 28. On
March 28, he again did not receive a pass, so the officer
again contacted medical, who told him to send Mr. Hendricks
to medical. Id. at 6.
March 28, 2017, Mr. Hendricks saw a nurse who x-rayed his
right foot and provided him with pain medication.
Id. On March 29, 2017, Dr. Paul Talbot examined Mr.
Hendricks for the first time as it related to this injury.
Dr. Talbot reviewed the x-ray which revealed swelling but no
fracture. Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 6. He noted tenderness in Mr.
Hendricks's ankle, but nothing indicated a torn ligament
or serious injury. Id. He ordered pain medication
for one week, a follow-up in a week, permits for a bottom
bunk pass and bottom range pass, a medical lay-in for thirty
days, crutches, and a wheelchair for longer distances, and he
placed Mr. Hendricks's ankle in a splint. Id.
April 11, 2017, Mr. Hendricks fell down in the shower and
further injured his right ankle. Id. at ¶ 7. He
went to medical where a nurse noted swelling and tenderness.
Dkt. 16 at 7. She contacted Dr. Talbot, who ordered that she
provide Mr. Hendricks with an injection of Toradol. Dkt. 59-1
at ¶ 7. The next day, Dr. Talbot examined Mr. Hendricks.
He concluded that Mr. Hendricks had a recurrent right ankle
sprain, and he counseled Mr. Hendricks to not bear any weight
on his foot to provide time for it to heal. Id. at
¶ 8. Dr. Talbot ordered that Mr. Hendricks be moved to
the medical block for handicap showers for thirty days and
crutches for thirty days, for all medication and meals to be
delivered for thirty days, and for Mr. Hendricks to return
for a follow-up in two to four weeks. Id. At his
next visit, on April 27, 2017, Dr. Talbot found the swelling
had resolved but that Mr. Hendricks was unable to move his
ankle due to ...