United States District Court, D. Delaware
JOHN A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
LAURIE ANN SPRAGA, D.O., et al., Defendants.
A. Taylor, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna,
Delaware. Pro se Plaintiff.
A. Griffith and Scott G. Wilcox, Esquires, Whiteford, Taylor
& Preston, L.L.C., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for
Defendants Laurie Ann Spraga, Edward Hendricks and Correct
Care Solutions LLC.
Spring Monzo and Randall Shaw MacTough, Esquires, White &
Williams, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant
Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.
ROBINSON, Senior District Judge
John A. Taylor ("plaintiff'), an inmate at the James
T. Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna,
Delaware, proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. He filed this lawsuit in December
2014 raising medical needs claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (D.I. 3) Presently before the court are
plaintiff's motions to compel, a motion for summary
judgment filed by defendants Laurie Ann Spraga ("Dr.
Spraga"), Edward Hendricks ("Hendricks") and
Correct Care Solutions LLC ("CCS") (collectively
CCS defendants), and a motion to dismiss filed by defendant
Connections Community Support Programs, Inc.
("CCSP"). (D.I. 41, 45, 52, 64) The court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
plaintiff commenced this action, CCS was the contract
healthcare service provider for the VCC. Plaintiff has
suffered from chronic and serious nerve pain for over 15
years. (D.I. 3, 34) He was prescribed Neurontin for
neuropathic pain but, on February 27, 2013, Hendricks
discontinued the medication. (D.I. 32 at 2) Plaintiff alleges
that the medication was discontinued without a doctor's
order or evaluation. (D.I. 3, 34) Medical records indicate
that when it was discovered that plaintiff was hoarding his
Neurontin instead of taking it as prescribed, the medication
was discontinued. (D.I. 52, exs. A, B) Plaintiff's
Neurontin regimen was replaced with Motrin. (Id. at
2013, medical personnel discussed with plaintiff his hoarding
of medication, including on March 5, March 27, April 8, June
10, and August 20. (Id. at ex. B) Plaintiff was seen
by Dr. Spraga on December 26, 2013, and the discontinuation
of the Neurontin was again discussed. (Id. at ex. B)
At that time, plaintiff told Dr. Spraga that Capsaicin cream
relieved his pain, but Motrin did not. (Id.)
Although Dr. Spraga wrote a prescription for Capsaicin cream,
plaintiff then stated that it does not work either.
plaintiff was seen in March 2014, his pain was evaluated and
it was determined that Motrin was sufficient for pain
control. (Id. at ex. C) In May 2014, plaintiff was
in possession of a card of medication of Motrin that had been
prescribed to another inmate. (Id. at ex. D) He
advised medical that he had been taking that Motrin for
several days. (Id.) On July 1, 2014, CCSP became the
medical service contract provider for the VCC.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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). The moving party bears the burden of
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.10 (1986). A party asserting
that a fact cannot be-or, alternatively, is-genuinely
disputed must be supported either by citing to
"particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information,
affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those
made for the purposes of the motions only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials, " or by
"showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the
fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A), (B). If the moving
party has carried its burden, the nonmovant must then
"come forward with specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita, 475
U.S. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court
will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
summary judgment stage, the judge's function is not to
weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but
to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249
(1986). The judge must ask not whether the evidence
unmistakably favors one side or the other, but whether a
fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on
the evidence presented. Id. at 252. The court must
not engage in the making of "[credibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing
of legitimate inferences from the facts" as these
"are jury functions, not ...