United States District Court, D. Maryland
ANTHONY O. JENNINGS, #285447 Plaintiff,
DOCTOR COLIN OTTEY P.A. GREG FLURY Defendants.
WILLIAM N. NICKERSON, Senior District Judge.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Anthony O. Jennings ("Jennings"), presently housed at the North Branch Correctional Institution ("NBCI"), filed a civil rights complaint against Defendants Dr. Colin Ottey and Physician's Assistant ("PA") Greg Flury seeking $1, 000, 000.00 in damages. He alleges that he injured his right knee and complained about it for over a year. Jennings asserts that when seen by a prison doctor and a PA, he was referred to Bon Secours Hospital ("BSH") in Baltimore, Maryland, where on June 27, 2012, a doctor advised that arthroscopic surgery was needed for his knee. He complains that neither Ottey nor Flury followed up on the surgical recommendation for over one year. ECF No. 1. Jennings was permitted to amend his Complaint to allege that Ottey and Flury "knowingly and intentionally ignored" the BSH surgeon's recommendation and prescription order. ECF No. 9.
II. PENDING MOTIONS
Defendants Ottey and Flury's original Motion to Dismiss was denied by this Court and they were ordered to file a motion for summary judgment with exhibits. See ECF No. 27. They have now filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to which Jennings has filed a response. ECF Nos. 36 & 40. In addition, Jennings has filed his own Motions for Summary Judgment and for Appointment of Counsel. ECF Nos. 28, 31, 32, 40 & 41.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary Judgment is governed by Fed. R.Civ. P. 56(a), which provides, in part:
The 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.
The Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will defeat the motion:
By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). In resolving the motion, the court should "view the evidence in the light most favorable to... the nonmovant, and draw all inferences in her favor without weighing the evidence or assessing the witness' credibility." Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). However, "[t]he party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings, ' but rather must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 525 (4th Cir. 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). Moreover, the court must abide by the "affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial.'" Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 526 (quoting Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778-79 (4th Cir.1993), and citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)).
Defendants Ottey and Flury do not dispute that Jennings was examined by BSH orthopedic surgeon Ashkok Krishnaswamy on May 25, 2012, and was diagnosed with early arthritis, a potentially torn meniscus, and a possible anterior cruciate ligament ("ACL") tear in his right knee. ECF No. 36, Ex. A, pgs. 506-507. On June 27, 2012, an MRI was performed on Jennings' right knee which showed that he had an irregularity in his quadriceps fat pad, an irregular ...