Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-2149 - BEATTY v. PERSON et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-2149 - BEATTY v. PERSON et al
July 26, 2017
PDF | More
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - 8 Motion for Extension of Time is granted through August 22, 2017 to file the initial partial filing fee of Two Dollars and Twenty Cents ($2.20). The allegations in the complaint are sufficient to allege an Eighth Amendment claim against Corizon and Wexford for their alleged systemic failures in responding to the plaintiff's medical needs in a timely fashion. These facts (read liberally) are also sufficient to allege that Dr. M. Person, Medical Director L. Bergeson, and Nurse Tina Collins were deliberately indifferent to the Beaty's serious medical needs. This summary of remaining claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the Court in the complaint. All other claims have been dismissed. If Beatty believes that additional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court he shall have through August 22, 2017, in which to identify those claims. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants (1) Corizon Health, (2) Wexford Medical of Indiana, (3) Dr. M. Person, (4) L. Bergeson, Wexford Medical Director, and (5) Nurse Tina Collins in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 1) supplemental amended complaint (docket 7), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/26/2017. (Copies mailed per distribution) (MEJ)
March 26, 2018
PDF | More
Entry Discussing Pending Motions - The plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment in his favor. Summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The defendants have opposed this motion. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment seeking injunctive relief, dkt 30, is denied without prejudice. The plaintiff's motion to compel seeks an order to compel defendants to produce all of Dr. Person's handwritten notes, medical orders and medical notes related to the plaintiff. In response, Dr. Person stated that his sworn interrogatory responses reflect that he did not order an MRI for the plaintiff because it was not medically indicated. Instead of filing a reply to Dr. Person's response, the plaintiff took the unusual step of seeking to strike Dr. Person's response. The motion to strike, dkt 37, is denied. The court has considered Dr. Person's response to the plaintiff's motion to compel. After considering the parties' briefing on this issue, the motion to compel, dkt 35, is denied because there is nothing more to produce. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/26/2018. (RSF)