United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
De'Auntaye White, an inmate at the Pendleton Correctional
Facility (“PCF”), brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendant Dr. Paul Talbot
exhibited deliberate indifference to his back pain in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Dr. Talbot moves
for summary judgment on this claim and Mr. White has
responded. For the following reasons, Dr. Talbot's motion
for summary judgment is granted.
Summary Judgment Standard
motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a
trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Whether
a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely
disputed, the party must support the asserted fact by citing
to particular parts of the record, including depositions,
documents, or affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party
can also support a fact by showing that the materials cited
do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute
or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B). The moving
party is entitled to summary judgment if no reasonable
fact-finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party.
Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009).
summary judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence
it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its
version of the events. Gekas v. Vasilades, 814 F.3d
890, 896 (7th Cir. 2016). 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. Skiba v.
Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717 (7th Cir.
2018). The Court need only consider the cited materials,
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals has repeatedly assured the district courts that they
are not required to “scour every inch of the
record” for evidence that is potentially relevant to
the summary judgment motion before them. Grant v.
Trustees of Indiana University, 870 F.3d 562, 573-74
(7th Cir. 2017).
White responded to the motion for summary judgment, but he
did not submit evidence or identify parts of the record to
support his claims. Accordingly, the facts alleged in the
motion are deemed admitted so long as support for them exists
in the record. See S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56-1 (“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.”); 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”); Brasic v. Heinemanns, Inc., 121
F.3d 281, 285-286 (7th Cir. 1997) (affirming grant of summary
judgment where the nonmovant failed to properly offer
evidence disputing the movant's version of the facts).
This does not alter the summary judgment standard, but it
does “[r]educ[e] the pool” from which facts and
inferences relative to the motion may be drawn. Smith v.
Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
White was transferred to PCF on January 12, 2015. Dkt. 54-2,
p. 13. He has been incarcerated at the PCF during all
relevant times covered in his Complaint. Id.
White alleges that he has been complaining of back pain since
2015. Dkt. 1, p. 4; Dkt. 54-2, p. 21-22. But his available
medical records indicate that the earliest he complained of
back pain was March of 2018. Dkt. 48-2, p 339.
Talbot first saw Mr. White for his complaints of back pain on
April 18, 2018. Dkt. 48-1, ¶ 8. Dr. Talbot
assessed Mr. White's back during this visit. Id.
Mr. White stated that he first injured his back in a 2009
motor vehicle accident. Id. Despite Mr. White's
complaints of pain, Dr. Talbot noted that he was able to
remain active during his incarceration. Id., ¶
Talbot ordered x-rays as a diagnostic tool to assess whether
Mr. White had an identifiable injury causing pain.
Id., ¶ 10. Dr. Talbot reviewed Mr. White's
ability to perform his activities of daily living and Mr.
White indicated he could perform such activities.
Id., ¶ 9. Finally, to address Mr. White's
complaints of pain, Dr. Talbot provided a one-month
prescription for Mobic from April 20, 2018 to May 19, 2018.
Id., ¶¶ 10-11. Mobic, like Ibuprofen, is a
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug often used as a pain
reliever. Id., ¶ 11.
White purchased 30 tablets of Ibuprofen from commissary in
May or June of 2018. Dkt. 54-2, p. 30-31. This was the only
time Mr. White purchased a painkiller from commissary.
Id., p. 31-32.
Talbot next saw Mr. White for his complaints of back pain on
May 7, 2018. Dkt. 48-1, ¶ 12. Mr. White had back x-rays
taken on April 24, 2018. Id. Dr. Talbot discussed
Mr. White's x-ray results, which came back as negative
for abnormalities. Id., ¶ 13.
Talbot does not believe that further diagnostic testing,
including an MRI, is necessary given the results of his
assessments and Mr. White's x-ray results. Id.,
¶ 15. Dr. Talbot also does not believe that Mr. White is
a candidate for a back brace given the lack of ...