United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Keith Watkins United States District Judge.
deliberate indifference claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Plaintiff Joshua Hutchinson alleges that several medical
professionals employed by QCHC to work in the Montgomery
County Detention Facility were aware of and ignored the
deterioration of his mental health. On July 31, 2019, the
Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 150) that
Defendants' separate motions for summary judgment (Docs.
# 139, 141) be granted. Plaintiff timely objected to the
Recommendation (Doc. # 151), and Defendants responded to his
objection (Doc. # 154). Upon an independent and de
novo review of the record, Plaintiff's objections
are due to be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation is due to be adopted.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under
28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties do not contest personal
jurisdiction or venue.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party
must show 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 court views the
evidence, and all reasonable inferences drawn from it, in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th
seeking summary judgment “always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for the motion.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This responsibility includes
identifying the parts of the record that show there is no
genuine dispute of material fact. A movant who does not bear
a trial burden of production may also assert, without citing
the record, that the nonmoving party “cannot produce
admissible evidence to support” a material fact.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B). If the moving party meets its
burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present
evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact. A genuine
dispute of material fact exists when the nonmoving party
produces evidence allowing a reasonable fact-finder to return
a verdict in its favor. Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental
Assocs., 276 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).
Magistrate Judge provided a thorough recitation of the
factual and procedural history of this case, which the court
need not repeat. (See Doc. # 150, at 2-4.) Mr.
Hutchinson has conceded that Michelle Beasley, Kim Patterson,
Sharon Smith, Teresa Varden, and Dr. Kern's motion for
summary judgment (Doc. # 141) should be granted. (Doc. # 148,
Hutchinson “bases his objection on the magistrate
judge's finding [Doc. # 150, at 9] that plaintiff having
‘daily interactions' with medical staff to
‘refill his CPAP with distilled water, administer
medication, and/or take his weight' constitutes daily
monitoring of his condition.” (Doc. # 151, at 1.)
Plaintiff contends that “none of those things required
medical staff to talk to plaintiff or determine whether his
mental health was deteriorating.” (Doc. # 151, at 1.)
He argues that a jury could find Defendants liable because
they either had actual knowledge of Plaintiff's
deteriorating condition or, alternatively, they failed to
monitor Plaintiff properly “despite the known
risk” that solitary confinement posed to his mental
health. (Doc. # 151, at 2.) This objection is meritless, and
even if it was not, it would be insufficient to save Mr.
Hutchinson's claim from summary judgment.
Plaintiff's objection lacks merit because he has
conceded and the record shows that Defendants monitored
judgment is due to be granted because Plaintiff's
objection directly contradicts his Complaint and the record.
“[A] party is bound by the admissions in his
pleadings.” Best Canvas Products & Supplies,
Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines, Inc., 713 F.2d 618, 621 (11th
Cir. 1983). Plaintiff is bound by his Complaint's
• the nurse defendants “came into contact with
plaintiff multiple times a week, if not multiple times a day,
” (Doc. # 70, ¶ 50);
• Plaintiff “was under close observation
due to his deterioration, and for other reasons, during and
after October 2014, plaintiff had daily interactions with . .
. the individual nurse defendants, ...