United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
David Scott, an inmate at the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 alleging that he received inadequate medical care for a
broken jaw while he was confined at the Marion County Jail.
The defendants, who are all Sheriff Deputies at the Jail,
move for summary judgment on Mr. Scott's claims. Mr.
Scott has responded, and the defendants have replied. For the
following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is
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). Failure to properly support a fact in opposition
to a movant's factual assertion can result in the
movant's fact being considered undisputed, and
potentially in the grant of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P.
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).
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). It cannot weigh evidence
or make credibility determinations on summary judgment
because those tasks are left to the fact-finder. Miller
v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). 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). Any
doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial is
resolved against the moving party. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255.
Scott has 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
defendants' 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.”);
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).
the events giving rise to his claim took place, Mr. Scott was
a pre-trial detainee housed at the Jail pending criminal
charges. Dkt. 70-2. Mr. Scott claims that he “was
assaulted by another inmate at the facility” on
February 2, 2016. Dkt. 70-1, p. 8. None of the defendants in
this case witnessed the assault and Mr. Scott did not report
the assault to any of them. Id., p. 10.
this assault, Mr. Scott had “throbbing pain in [the]
left mandible, a headache, and the inside of [his] mouth was
… getting dry, like the mucous membrane had been
damaged.” Id., p. 12. He could not open or
close his mouth without pain. Id. But he did not
have any bleeding or lacerations that were visible on the
outside of his face. Id., p. 19.
a few hours of the assault, Mr. Scott submitted a written
request for medical care directly to one of the nursing
staff. Id., p. 18. Mr. Scott's request was
classified as a “sick call” request by nursing
staff. Id., p. 22. He was seen by Dr. Hill on
February 5, 2016. Id. That same day, he was sent to
Eskenazi Hospital where he received a CT scan and was
diagnosed with a fracture of the left mandibular bone and an
abscess. Id., p. 24-25; dkt. 70-5, p. 2. He returned
to the Jail later that afternoon and was placed in the
infirmary. Dkt. 70-1, p. 26. He was returned to his cell
later that night. Id. at 27.
February 6, 2016, Mr. Scott presented another written health
request. Id., p. 28; dkt. 70-5, p.28. This request
states, “The Ibuprofen isn't working. Could I
please get something else?” Dkt. 70-5, p. 28. This
request was tendered directly to the nurse-not any of the
Sheriff Deputies- when the nurse made her regularly scheduled
rounds that morning. Dkt. 70-1, p. 28. Medical staff
saw Mr. Scott on February 8, 2016. Id., p. 31.
Scott submitted a third request for medical care on February
13, 2016. Id. He submitted this handwritten request
to a nurse. Id., p. 32. Mr. Scott was seen by Dr.
Hill on February 16, 2016. Id., p. 32. Dr. Hill
noted, “called HSA office and they are now aware of the
fact that the patient needs to get a follow-up appointment
with plastic department at Eskenazi.” Id., at
33; dkt. 70-5, p. 32-33.
the February 13, 2016 request, Mr. Scott is not “sure
of any specific dates” when he requested any additional
medical assistance. Dkt. 70-1, p. 35. Mr. Scott was seen
daily by nursing staff between February 17, 2016 and February
24, 2016, to receive his medications. Id., p. 35-36.
Mr. Scott was then sent to the special care unit.
Id., p. 36. He was then transferred to Eskenazi
Hospital where he had surgery performed on his jaw on
February 25, 2016. Id.
this time, Mr. Scott made requests to the defendant Sheriff
Deputies for medical assistance. Id., p. 45.
However, he does not recall any specific dates or times at
which these requests were made. Id. All of these
requests were verbal, id., and some occurred in
passing. Id., p. 54. Other than a general range of
February 2, 2016 to ...