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.

Steve Mcneil, # B-15290 v. Warden Atchison

December 12, 2012

STEVE MCNEIL, # B-15290, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN ATCHISON, DR. NWAOBSI, DR. FUENTES, AND JANETTE KINKADE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gilbert, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff states that Defendants Atchison, Nwaobsi, Fuentes and Kinkade have shown deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Specifically Plaintiff claims that Dr. Fuentes and Dr. Nwaobosi have failed to address his serious medical condition, i.e. hemorrhoids. Plaintiff states that Defendant Fuentes, a Menard physician, diagnosed his condition sometime in 2011; however, his prescribed treatment failed to remedy the problem. Plaintiff states that his subsequent requests for treatment resulted in a consultation with Defendant Nwaobosi. Further requests for treatment, including a conversation with Defendant Atchinson about his hemorrhoids, have not been addressed.

As his second claim, Defendant states that a broken dental filling has caused him pain and medical harm since December 14, 2011, when he first requested dental treatment at Menard. He is on a waiting list for dental surgery and has been told that removal of the tooth would shorten his wait for treatment. Defendant Kinkade, a nursing supervisor at Menard, has ignored his condition, and required him to resubmit his sick-call slips, despite his diagnosis and on-going suffering.

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of Plaintiff's operative complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:

(a) Screening. -- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal. -- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has articulated a colorable federal cause of action against Defendants Nwaobsi and Fuentes, for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need (Count 1) and against Defendant Kinkade for deliberate indifference to medical needs (Count 2).

However, the claim against Defendant Atchison, Warden of Menard, is dismissed on initial review because the doctrine of respondeat superior is not applicable to § 1983 actions. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that this defendant is "personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right." Id. Accordingly, Defendant Atchison is DISMISSED as a defendant without prejudice, as plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Pending Motions

Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 5) shall be referred to United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier for further consideration.

Disposition

Defendant Atchison is DISMISSED as a defendant ...


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.