United States District Court, D. Maine
NICHOLAS A. GLADU, Plaintiff,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
prisoner in Maine custody brought suit challenging the
decisions of correctional staff and medical providers
concerning his bilateral hip pain. The Court affirms the
Magistrate Judge's recommended decision and grants
summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
September 23, 2015, Nicholas A. Gladu filed a complaint with
this Court against Correct Care Solutions and a number of
individual defendants, alleging that while confined in the
Maine State Prison and Maine Correctional Center, he did not
receive proper medical treatment for bilateral hip pain and
that the Defendants retaliated against him for filing
grievances within the prison system. Verified Compl. for
Damages and Inj. Relief (ECF No. 1). On December 21,
2015, Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George
Stockwell, D.O., and Wendy Riebe (collectively CCS) answered
the Complaint, denying its essential allegations and raising
affirmative defenses. Answer, Defenses and
Affirmative Defenses of Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert
Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, M.D. and Wendy Riebe, HSA to
Pl.'s Verified Compl. (ECF No. 61).
December 5, 2016, Mr. Gladu filed an amended complaint in
which he added Susan Carr and the Maine Department of
Corrections as Defendants (collectively DOC), alleging that
the Defendants violated the Rehabilitation Act, Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and analogous claims
under the Maine Human Rights Act. First Am. Compl.
(ECF No. 251). On January 3, 2017, DOC filed a motion for
summary judgment together with a statement of material facts
in support of the motion. Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No.
261); Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 262)
(DOC Mot.). On January 4, 2017, the CCS moved for
summary judgment. Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert
Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe's
Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 266) (CCS Mot.). On
March 29, 2017, Mr. Gladu filed responses to the motions for
summary judgment, Pl.'s Br. in Resp. to Defs.'
Mots. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 341) (Gladu
Opp'n), and a statement of disputed factual issues.
Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Factual Issues (ECF
No. 342) (PRDSMF). On April 7, DOC replied. Reply to
Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 353) (DOC
Reply). On April 12, 2017, CCS replied and filed a reply
to Mr. Gladu's statement of facts. Defs. Correct Care
Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O., and
Wendy Riebe's Reply to Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.'
Mot. for Summ. J. (ECF No. 358) (CCS Reply);
Defs. Correct Care Solutions, Robert Clinton, M.D.,
George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy Riebe's Consolidated
Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 357) (DRPSMF).
December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended
decision in which he recommended that the Court grant
CCS's and DOC's motions for summary judgment and he
granted in part and denied in part a number of then pending
motions. Recommended Decision of Defs.' Mots. for
Summ. J. and Order on Pl.'s Record-Related Mots.
(ECF No. 512) (Recommended Decision). On January 2,
2018, Mr. Gladu objected to the recommended decision.
Pl.'s Objection to Recommended Decision
(ECF No. 520) (Gladu Obj.). On January 5, 2018, Mr.
Gladu filed a notice to the effect that he was objecting to
the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision “in
whole, even though Plaintiff only responded to specific
portions.” Additional Attach. (ECF No. 521).
On January 16, 2018, CCS responded to Mr. Gladu's
objection. Defs.' Correct Care Solutions, Robert
Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O., and Wendy Riebe's
Resp. to Pl.'s Obj. to Report and Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 525) (CCS Resp. to Gladu
Obj.). DOC did not respond to Mr. Gladu's objection
to the recommended decision.
THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
CCS's Motion for Summary Judgment
framed its motion for summary judgment as testing whether an
inmate has the constitutional right to direct his own care
against the professional judgment of his medical providers.
CCS Mot. at 1-20. Despite the fact that Mr. Gladu
believes he has a serious medical condition, CCS maintains
that he does not have the constitutional right to control his
own medical treatment and that CCS is entitled to summary
DOC's Motion for Summary Judgment
sees it, the focus of Mr. Gladu's complaint against DOC
is that it failed and refused to issue him a second mattress
to alleviate pain in both hips. DOC Mot. at 1-5. DOC
contends that it has acted in accordance with its policies in
issuing Mr. Gladu one mattress and in following the advice
from its medical providers in denying Mr. Gladu a second one.
Nicholas Gladu's Opposition
Gladu opposes the motions for summary judgment. Gladu
Opp'n at 1-29. Mr. Gladu states that he was examined
by an orthopedic surgeon and was thought to suffer from
“possible bilateral trochanteric bursitis with rule out
differential diagnosis sought for osteonecrosis by undergoing
a recommended MRI.” Id. at 2. However, Mr.
Gladu says that the recommended MRI was denied by the
Defendants and the “differential diagnosis was never
ruled out.” Id. Mr. Gladu says that his
“pain and systemic symptoms have persistently worsened
and he has not received adequate medical treatment.”
THE RECOMMENDED DECISION
Magistrate Judge framed the issue as follows:
Plaintiff Nicholas Gladu alleges that Defendants have acted
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs,
discriminated against him on the basis of disability,
retaliated against him for engaging in conduct protected
under the First Amendment, and breached duties owed to him
under Maine law.
Recommended Decision at 1.
CCS's motion for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge
set forth the undisputed material facts. Id. at
4-15. Turning to DOC's motion for summary judgment, the
Magistrate Judge then set forth the undisputed facts in that
motion. Id. at 15-16. The Magistrate Judge also
reviewed Mr. Gladu's statements. Id. at 16-18.
Magistrate Judge then turned to the legal standards to make
out a case for a deliberate indifference claim under §
1983. Id. at 20-22. Applying the law to the
undisputed facts, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
“the record fails to reveal an objectively serious,
undiagnosed medical condition that poses a serious risk of
harm to Plaintiff's health.” Id. at 22.
The Magistrate Judge drew this conclusion despite Mr.
Gladu's “concerns that he might suffer from a
number of serious, potentially life-threatening diseases that
have not been diagnosed.” Id. The Magistrate
Judge wrote that the “record lacks any admissible
evidence that would support such a finding.”
Id. The Magistrate Judge also rejected Mr.
Gladu's claims about his need for an ...