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.

Murphy v. Corizon

United States District Court, District of Maine

May 13, 2014

CAROL MURPHY, Plaintiff
v.
CORIZON, et als., Defendants.

Plaintiff CAROL MURPHY represented by CAROL MURPHY PRO SE

Defendant CORIZON represented by ROBERT C. HATCH THOMPSON & BOWIE, LLP ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant KEN TOPEL represented by ROBERT C. HATCH ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant PRAVEEN PAVULURU represented by ROBERT C. HATCH ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge

In this action, Plaintiff Carol Murphy alleges that Defendant Corizon and certain of its employees violated her Eighth Amendment right to receive medical treatment in prison. The matter is before the Court on the Corizon Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 110.) Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with Local Rule 56 but has, instead, filed a “Notification of Removal” based on alleged due process violations. (Notification, ECF No. 118.) For reasons that follow, it is recommended[1] that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

Background

Plaintiff commenced this action on March 23, 2012, and complained of medical treatment that Defendants rendered or denied during Plaintiff’s incarceration at the Windham Correctional Facility. In her complaint, Plaintiff also joined the Maine Department of Corrections and certain Department officials as Defendants.

On May 9, 2012, the Maine Department of Corrections and its officers filed a motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Kravchuk issued a Report and Recommendation on the motion, in which report she recommended that the Court grant the motion and dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against said Defendants. On August 22, 2012, Judge Woodcock issued an Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation.[2]

The Corizon Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Kravchuk recommended that the Court grant the motion, in part, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims regarding tuberculosis testing, osteoporosis treatment, food allergy treatment, asthma treatment, flu medication, and other concerns, but allow Plaintiff to proceed on her claims related to the treatment, or alleged non-treatment, of severe back pain and a painful, infected tooth. The Court adopted the recommendation on December 21, 2012.[3]

In its scheduling order, the Court established May 29, 2013, as the discovery deadline. In June 2013, Plaintiff completed her state-imposed prison sentence. On August 20, 2013, the Corizon Defendants moved for leave to file a late dispositive motion. As grounds for the motion, Defendants cited Plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery, particularly with respect to Plaintiff’s failure to provide medical and dental releases, which failure eventually prompted Defendants to file a motion to compel disclosure of administrative and medical records by the Department of Corrections. Magistrate Judge Margaret Kravchuk granted Defendants’ request, and set October 18, 2013, as the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. Meanwhile, on August 30, Plaintiff filed her second[4] motion for the recusal of Judge Woodcock and Magistrate Judge Kravchuk, which motion was denied. Plaintiff then filed an interlocutory appeal on September 16, 2013.

The Corizon Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 10, 2013. On November 14, 2013, Magistrate Judge Kravchuk stayed further action on the motion pending resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff sought an extension on her response, which request was mooted in light of the stay. Magistrate Judge Kravchuk ordered that Plaintiff file her response within seven days following the Court’s receipt of the Court of Appeals mandate.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as the orders denying recusal were not subject to immediate appeal and no basis existed for mandamus relief. (ECF No. 117.) The Court of Appeals returned its mandate on February 26, 2014. (ECF No. 119.) Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the summary judgment motion, therefore, was March 5, 2014. Plaintiff thus had approximately 21 weeks from the filing of the motion to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Although Plaintiff filed her ...


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.