MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. PATRICK MURPHY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Tony Jackson filed this pro se lawsuit on June 18, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Docs. 1, 15). Plaintiff claimed that Defendant Dr. Magid Fahim was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights (Docs. 1, 15). Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that Dr. Fahim failed to treat Plaintiff's rectal bleeding and failed to give Plaintiff medication recommended by an outside physician (Docs. 1, 15). This matter is currently before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Dr. Magid Fahim (Doc. 48). For the reasons set forth below, Dr. Fahim's motion for summary judgment is granted.
Plaintiff Tony Jackson is an inmate incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections for sexual assault (Doc. 50-5). He is currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, however, the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard") (Doc. 1). While Plaintiff was incarcerated at Menard, Defendant, Dr. Magid Fahim, was the Medical Director there (Doc. 50-1).
Plaintiff arrived at Menard in August 2009 (Doc. 50-5). In January 2010, Plaintiff was seen by medical professionals in the healthcare unit for periodic abdominal pain, cramping, and diarrhea (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Various laboratory tests were ordered and came back in February 2010 as normal (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). On April 5, 2010, Plaintiff complained to a certified medical technician ("CMT") about blood in his stool, and the CMT ordered a referral to a nurse practitioner or doctor (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Two days later, Dr. Fahim saw Plaintiff for the first time (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Dr. Fahim reviewed Plaintiff's medical history, conducted a physical examination, and gave Plaintiff a digital rectal examination ( See Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Dr. Fahim concluded that Plaintiff had internal hemorrhoids (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). He advised Plaintiff to increase his water intake, prescribed Preparation H, and instructed Plaintiff to follow up in three months (Docs. 50-1, 50-6).
Just over two months later, on June 13, 2010, Plaintiff again complained to a CMT about blood in his stool (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Plaintiff reported he was not in pain and requested Preparation H, which he had voluntarily stopped using (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Due to a lockdown at Menard, Plaintiff was not seen by a nurse practitioner or doctor until June 21, 2010 (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). At that time, Plaintiff was prescribed the Preparation H suppositories that he had requested (Docs. 50-1, 50-6).
On July 9, 2010, Plaintiff complained to a CMT of constipation and he was given Colace, a stool softener (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). On July 13, 2010, Dr. Fahim saw Plaintiff again (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Plaintiff was still complaining about rectal bleeding, and Dr. Fahim prescribed more Preparation H suppositories and Dibucaine, which is an ointment used to relieve pain and itching due to hemorrhoids (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Plaintiff was ordered to follow up with Dr. Fahim in three months (Docs. 50-1, 50-6).
On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff complained to a CMT about rectal bleeding, as well as weight loss and fatigue (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). The CMT referred Plaintiff to a nurse practitioner, whom he saw four days later (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). The nurse practitioner ordered Plaintiff's weight to be checked multiple times per week and gave Plaintiff cards to test for the presence of blood in his stools (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). On August 13, 2010, Plaintiff saw the nurse practitioner again; she noted that several of the stool cards tested positive for blood, so she scheduled Plaintiff for an evaluation with Dr. Krieg and possible colonoscopy (Docs. 50-1, 50-6).
Six days later, on August 19, 2010, Dr. Krieg saw Plaintiff (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Dr. Krieg noted that Plaintiff had been complaining of rectal bleeding for 4-5 months, and while it was initially episodic, Plaintiff now reported it present with each bowel movement (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Dr. Krieg examined Plaintiff's rectum externally and internally and recommended Plaintiff undergo a sigmoid colonoscopy (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). On September 10, 2010, Plaintiff underwent the sigmoid colonoscopy, and based on the results, it was recommended that Plaintiff have a colonoscopy with hemorrhoid banding for further treatment (Docs. 50-1, 50-6).
Dr. Fahim saw Plaintiff again on October 12, 2010, and Dr. Fahim scheduled a discussion with "Collegial (utilization management)" regarding a colonoscopy for Plaintiff (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Collegial approved the colonoscopy two days later (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). Plaintiff underwent the colonoscopy on November 11, 2010 at Touchette Regional Hospital (Docs. 50-1, 50-2). The operative report stated that no internal hemorrhoids were present, and Plaintiff had acute left-sided colitis (Docs. 50-1, 50-2), a form of inflammatory bowel syndrome ("IBS") (Doc. 50-1). The surgeon recommended starting Plaintiff on Azulfidine (Docs. 50-1, 50-2), a medication that addresses some of the symptoms of IBS (Doc. 50-1). Following the colonoscopy, multiple attempts were made to see Plaintiff in November 2010 for his post-surgery assessment, but Menard's healthcare unit had not yet received the pathology and operative reports from Plaintiff's colonoscopy ( See Docs. 50-1, 50-6). After the reports were received, Plaintiff saw a nurse practitioner on December 20, 2010 (Docs. 50-1, 50-6). He was given a prescription for Azulfidine (Docs. 50-1, 50-6).
Throughout 2011, Plaintiff was seen regularly in the healthcare unit and was presciped various medications (Doc. 50-1). He was given Sulfazine, which is similar to Azulfidine; Prilosec, which is used to relieve gastritis, an ulcer, and/or Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Prednisone, which is a steroid used to reduce inflammation in Plaintiff's bowel; Imuran, which is used to relieve symptoms of IBS; "pink Bizmuth" which is similar to Pepto-Bismol, and Zantac (Doc. 50-1). Dr. Fahim left Menard in August 2011 (Doc. 50-1).
I. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment
The standard applied to summary judgment motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is well-settled and has ...