United States District Court, D. Maine
NICHOLAS A. GLADU, Plaintiff,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON REMAINING MOTIONS
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the entry of judgment in favor of the Defendants, the
Plaintiff's prejudgment motions are moot. As the
Plaintiff is acting pro se, the Court explains why.
December 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended
decision on the Defendants' motions for summary judgment
in this suit, in which Nicholas Gladu challenges the
decisions of correctional staff and medical providers
concerning his bilateral hip pain. Recommended Decision
of Defs.' Mots. for Summ. J. and Order on Pl.'s
Record-Related Mots. (ECF No. 512) (Recommended
Decision). On February 14, 2018, the Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's recommended decision and granted
summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Order
Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 541). Contemporaneously, the Court
dismissed as moot Mr. Gladu's motion to exclude evidence.
Order on Objection to Order on Mot. to Exclude Evid.
(ECF No. 540). On February 15, 2018, judgment was entered in
favor of the Defendants and against Mr. Gladu in accordance
with the earlier order. J. (ECF No. 542). There are
three motions remaining, which the Court now dismisses as
moot for reasons it has described in earlier orders and
January 5, 2018, Mr. Gladu filed a motion requesting the
Court take judicial notice of an exhibit he had previously
submitted consisting of lab blood test results from 2012,
which he contends indicate the presence of a serious
underlying medical condition the Defendants have ignored.
Pl.'s Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 522);
Additional Evid. Attach. 1 at 5-6 (ECF No. 472). On
the same day, Mr. Gladu also filed a motion seeking to
clarify that when he previously moved the Court to take
judicial notice of medical treatises, he intended the Court
to consider the sections of those treatises pertaining to
certain examination, laboratory, and medical imaging
practices to establish the relevant standard of care.
Pl.'s Motion to Clarify His Request for Judicial
Notice of Medical Treatises (ECF No. 523). On January
26, 2018, the Correct Care Solutions Defendants filed a
response to both motions. Defs. Correct Care Solutions,
Robert Clinton, M.D., George Stockwell, D.O. and Wendy
Riebe's Response to Plantiff's Mot. for Judicial
Notice and Mot. to Clarify Pl.'s Request for Judicial
Notice of Medical Treatises (ECF No. 530).
Gladu is correct that the lab results indicated somewhat
above average blood phosphorus levels, but there is no
indication the medical providers ignored this information,
and a single elevated blood chemistry indicator might suggest
something of significance, or nothing at all, depending on
the numerous other tests and relevant data the medical
providers considered. The Defendants are correct that the
relevant sections of medical treatises and the sophisticated
interpretation of blood chemistry lab results are matters of
medical expertise, not amenable to judicial notice. See
Id. at 2-3. In any event, these motions make no
difference in the outcome of this case for the same reasons
the Magistrate Judge explained: “Plaintiff's
diagnosis is the subject of medical opinion and is not a fact
that is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute' as
contemplated by Federal Rule of Evidence 201.”
Recommended Decision at 2-3.
January 29, 2018, Mr. Gladu filed a motion requesting the
Court to hold a hearing to assess the merit of his recent
claim of spoliation. Pl.'s Motion to Hold
Proceedings (ECF No. 531). In Mr. Gladu's objection
to the recommended decision on summary judgment, he raised
the possibility that the Defendants have hidden evidence of a
recent x-ray comparison that indicates more degenerative
spinal changes because the results would be unfavorable to
the Defendants' position. Pl.'s Objection to
Recommended Decision at 2-3 (ECF No. 520). Mr. Gladu
contends that this would present a viable claim for
spoliation of evidence and bar summary judgment. Id.
(citing Pelletier v. Magnusson, 195 F.Supp.2d 214,
233-37 (D. Me. 2002)). Mr. Gladu apparently bases his
spoliation argument on representations of customer service
representatives from an imaging company, Mobilex USA.
spoliation arguments do not survive summary judgment. The
case Mr. Gladu cites is instructive. In Pelletier,
there was undisputed evidence regarding the genesis and prior
existence of key pieces of missing evidence. 195 F.Supp.2d at
233- 34. Here, in contrast, Mr. Gladu presents nothing more
than hearsay raising the possibility that the relevant
evidence ever existed. Furthermore, as the Court has
similarly explained regarding expert testimony, hearings
require considerable time and expense, which is why they are
not needed in these circumstances, where the evidence of
spoliation is paper-thin. See Order Affirming the
Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge at 16-17
(ECF No. 541).
A. Gladu's remaining motions do not impact the outcome of
the summary judgment analysis, and they are moot now that
judgment has issued. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES as moot
Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 522),
Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify His Request for Judicial
Notice of ...