United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
action, Plaintiff alleges Defendants acted with deliberate
indifference toward his serious medical needs. (Complaint at
5-6, ECF No. 1.)
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motions for
Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 57, 59.) Following a review of
the summary judgment record and after consideration of
Defendants' arguments,  I recommend the Court grant
Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
filed his complaint on April 26, 2017, asserting claims
related to the medical care of his feet and a restricted
diet. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2, ) which application the
Court granted on May 1, 2017. (ECF No. 4.) Because Plaintiff
was “a prisoner seek[ing] redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,
” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and in accordance with the
in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), I
conducted a preliminary review of Plaintiff's complaint,
and on May 25, 2017, I recommended the Court dismiss the
claims related to Plaintiff's diet and access to the
commissary. (Recommended Decision after Screening Complaint,
ECF No. 9.) The Court adopted the recommendation in relevant
part on June 8, 2017. (Order Affirming in Part Recommended
Decision, ECF No. 11.)
August 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, adding
a disability discrimination claim and another named
defendant. (ECF No. 21.) On September 19, 2017, I reviewed
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and recommended that the
Court dismiss the new defendant and the disability
discrimination claim. (Recommended Decision on Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 29.) The Court adopted the recommended
decision on October 30, 2017. (ECF No. 33.)
August 7, 2018, the Court dismissed the claims against
Defendant Cichon because Plaintiff failed to respond to
discovery requests as ordered. (Recommended Decision on
Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 55; Order Affirming Recommended
Decision, ECF No. 56.)
Hinkley filed a motion for summary judgment on September 14,
2018, (ECF No. 57, ) along with a statement of material
facts. (ECF No. 58, hereinafter DHSMF.) On September 21,
2018, Defendant Knowlton filed a motion for summary judgment,
(ECF No. 59, ) along with a statement of material facts. (ECF
No. 60, hereinafter DKSMF.)
court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “After the moving party has
presented evidence in support of its motion for summary
judgment, ‘the burden shifts to the nonmoving party,
with respect to each issue on which he has the burden of
proof, to demonstrate that a trier of fact reasonably could
find in his favor.'” Woodward v. Emulex
Corp., 714 F.3d 632, 637 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting
Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 158
(1st Cir. 1998)).
reviews the factual record in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, resolving evidentiary conflicts and drawing
reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor.
Perry v. Roy, 782 F.3d 73, 77 (1st Cir. 2015). If a
court's review of the record reveals evidence sufficient
to support findings in favor of the non-moving party on one
or more of his claims, a trial-worthy controversy exists and
summary judgment must be denied as to any supported claim.
Id. (“The district court's role is limited
to assessing whether there exists evidence such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Unsupported claims are properly dismissed. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
presented with a summary judgment motion, a court ordinarily
considers only the facts included in the parties'
statements of material facts, which statements must be
supported by citations to evidence of record. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(c) and District of Maine Local Rule 56(b)
- (d) require the specific citation to record evidence. In
addition, Local Rule 56 establishes the manner by which
parties must present their factual statements and the
evidence on which the statements depend. A party's pro se
status does not relieve the party of the obligation to comply
with the court's procedural rules.Ruiz Rivera v.
Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 27 - 28 & n. 2 (1st Cir. 2000);
Marcello v. Maine, 489 F.Supp.2d 70, 77 (D. Me.
rule, a party seeking summary judgment must file, in addition
to its summary judgment motion, a supporting statement of
material facts setting forth each fact in a separately
numbered paragraph, with each factual statement followed by a
citation to evidence of record that supports the factual
statement. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(b). A party opposing a motion
for summary judgment must file an opposing statement in which
it admits, denies, or qualifies the moving party's
statements by reference to each numbered paragraph, with
citations to supporting evidence, and in which it may set
forth additional facts, in separately numbered paragraphs,
with citation to supporting evidence. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(c).
If an additional statement is introduced by the non-moving
party, the moving party must file a reply statement in which
it admits, denies, or qualifies the non-moving party's
additional statements by reference to each numbered
paragraph, with citations to supporting evidence. D. Me. Loc.
contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material
facts, if supported by record citations as required by this
rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly
controverted.” D. Me. Loc. R. 56(f). Additionally,
“[t]he court may disregard any statement of fact not
supported by a specific citation to record material properly
considered on summary judgment.” Id. Finally,
“[t]he court shall have no independent duty to search
or consider any part of the record not specifically
referenced in the parties' separate statement of
the factual assertions contained in the verified pleadings
and affidavits filed by a pro se litigant generally will be
considered in the review of a summary judgment motion. That
is, where a pro se litigant has failed to comply strictly
with the summary judgment rules, this Court has considered
the sworn assertions of record. See Clarke v. Blais,
473 F.Supp.2d 124, 128 - 30 (D. Me. 2007) (“The First
Circuit has not addressed this notice debate directly, but
has said, in the summary judgment context, that unrepresented
plaintiffs' opposing affidavits and opposition papers are
to be read ‘liberally.'” (citing Posadas
de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Radin, 856 F.2d 399,
401 (1st Cir. 1988), and Mas Marques v. Digital Equip.
Corp., 637 F.2d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 1980)); Demmons v.
Tritch, 484 F.Supp.2d 177, 182 - 83 (D. Me. 2007).