Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Clark

United States District Court, D. Utah

September 27, 2019

ROY DEAN TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
LOGAN CLARK, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          David Nuffer United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff, Roy Dean Taylor, raises claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2019) as to his medical care by Defendant Clark during a six-month period at Wasatch County Jail (WCJ). (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff requests the following relief: “a real doctor” and “pain and suffering” damages.[1]

         Defendant filed a Martinez report with medical and other records and his declaration as to Plaintiff’s treatment. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff’s response to the Martinez report and summary-judgment motion lacks substantive argument and evidentiary support.[2]

         SUMMARY-JUDGMENT STANDARDS

         Summary judgment is proper when “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). A party may support factual assertions by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Id. at 56(c)(1)(A). Summary judgment’s purpose “is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

         The movant has the “initial burden to demonstrate an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the non-movant’s case.” Johnson v. City of Bountiful, 996 F.Supp. 1100, 1102 (D. Utah 1998). Once movant meets this burden, “the burden then shifts to the non-movant to make a showing sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of that element.” Id. To do so, the non-movant must “go beyond the pleadings and ‘set forth specific facts’ that would be admissible in evidence in the event of a trial from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant.” Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). In ruling on a summary-judgment motion, this Court must “examine the factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000).

         To educate Plaintiff about his duty in responding to a summary-judgment motion, the Court stated in an order,

Plaintiff is notified that if Defendant moves for summary judgment Plaintiff may not rest upon the mere allegations in the complaint. Instead, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), to survive a motion for summary judgment Plaintiff must allege specific facts, admissible in evidence, showing that there is a genuine issue remaining for trial.

(Doc. No. 10, at 5-6.)

         UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

         1. Plaintiff was held at WCJ for about forty-five weeks, from October 2014 through August 2015. (Doc. Nos. 24, at 1, & 24-2, at 3.)

         2. During the relevant time, Defendant was licensed physician assistant at WCJ. (Doc. Nos. 24, at 1-2, & 24-2, at 2-3.)

         3. During the relevant time, Plaintiff had chronic back pain, stomach symptoms, breathing problems, headaches, and swollen feet and hips. (Doc. Nos. 3, at 4-5, & 24-2, at 3.)

         4. During Plaintiff’s forty-five weeks at WCJ, Defendant provided medical care to Plaintiff no fewer than twenty-five times. (Doc. No. 24-2, at 3.)

         5. On October 29, 2014, within one week of Plaintiff’s arrival at WCJ, Defendant examined Plaintiff, noting, “Plaintiff did not appear in any acute distress, had a normal exam, and had no shortness of breath or difficulty breathing. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.