United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS United States Magistrate Judge
John Garfield is an inmate currently incarcerated at Dixon
Correctional Center. He brought the present lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
constitutional rights by Defendants during his incarceration
at Big Muddy Correctional Center. This matter is before the
Court on two motions for summary judgment, one filed by
Defendants Furlong and Larson (Doc. 63) and another filed by
Defendant Nalley (Doc. 65). The time for Plaintiff to respond
to the motions has passed, with Plaintiff responding only to
one. Therefore, Defendants' motions are ripe for
disposition. For the reasons articulated below, the Motions
for Summary Judgment (Docs. 63, 65) are both GRANTED.
and Procedural Background
Defendants Furlong and Larson
claims against Defendants Furlong and Larson arise from
treatment Plaintiff received for a cracked tooth that lead to
a fractured root. It is undisputed that Plaintiff was
incarcerated at Big Muddy Correctional Center (“Big
Muddy”) during 2012 and 2013 before he was transferred
to other institutions. (Doc. 64, p. 2; Doc. 70, p. 1).
Plaintiff's claims arise from the time period he was
incarcerated at Big Muddy. (Doc. 64, p. 2; Doc. 70, p. 1). On
January 31, 2013, Defendant Dr. Dennis Furlong, the dentist
at Big Muddy, examined Plaintiff in response to
Plaintiff's complaint of pain in his number two tooth.
(Doc. 64-1, p. 1). During that visit, Defendant Furlong
diagnosed Plaintiff with having Cracked Tooth Syndrome.
(Id.). On the same day, Plaintiff executed an IDOC
Consent for Treatment Form, wherein Plaintiff gave his
consent to Defendant Furlong to extract the number two tooth,
if necessary. (Doc. 64-3, p. 16). On this form, above
Plaintiff's signature, was a list of six potential risks
from the procedure, which included “Displacement of the
teeth into the sinuses or other soft tissue spaces requiring
additional surgery to remove.” (Id.).
Defendant Furlong attempted to remove the tooth on February
7, 2013, due to complaints of pain from Plaintiff. (Doc.
66-1, p. 4; Doc. 64-3, p. 1). During the procedure, however,
the medial root fractured away from the main body of the
tooth. (Doc. 64-1, p. 2). It is undisputed that at some point
the medial root was lost into Plaintiff's sinus cavity.
(Doc. 64, p. 3; Doc. 70, p. 2). As best the Court can tell,
however, there appears to be a dispute over at what point the
root lodged into the sinus canal. While Defendants Furlong
and Larson indicate it was lost during a subsequent,
unsuccessful, attempt to remove the fractured root on March
4, 2013 (Doc. 64, p. 3; Doc. 64-3, p. 1), Plaintiff appears
to take the position that the root was lost during the
February 7 extraction (Doc. 70, p. 2, 5; Doc. 66-1, p. 5).
March 9, 2013, due to the loss of the medial root into the
sinus cavity, Defendant Furlong submitted an IDOC Medical
Special Services Referral and Report requesting permission
from the Collegial Review Board of Wexford Health Sources,
Inc. (“Wexford”) to refer Plaintiff to an outside
oral surgeon. (Doc. 64-1, p. 2). On March 15, 2013, Dr.
O'Brien of the Collegial Review Board authorized the
request to allow Plaintiff to see an outside surgeon.
(Id.). On April 4, 2013, Plaintiff had an initial
visit with Dr. Jay Swanson, an oral surgeon. (Doc. 64-2, p. 2
- 3). During that visit, Dr. Swanson recommended a
Caldwell-Luc procedure to remove the root. (Id.). On
April 8, 2013, Defendant Dr. Dennis Larson, the Medical
Director at Big Muddy, approved Dr. Swanson's
recommendations, and on April 10, 2013, Dr. Haymes of the
Collegial Review Board authorized Plaintiff to have the
operation. (Id. at 1 - 2, 3). Dr. Swanson performed
the operation on April 10, 2013. (Id. at 3). Upon
discharge, Plaintiff was prescribed pain medication and
antibiotics. (Id.). When Plaintiff returned to Big
Muddy, he was placed in the healthcare unit
(“HCU”) for 23 hours of observation and
treatment, and given the pain medication and antibiotic
prescribed by Dr. Swanson. (Id. at 3 - 4).
April 11, 2013, Defendant Larson examined Plaintiff prior to
his discharge from the HCU. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff
indicated that he felt “ok”, his mouth was sore,
and he could tolerate the pain. (Id.). Defendant
Larson ordered Plaintiff to follow up in one week and
requested authorization from the Collegial Review Board to
allow Plaintiff to follow up with Dr. Swanson in a week.
(Id.). Plaintiff was discharged on April 11, 2013,
and while Defendants take the position that Defendant
informed the nurse he was “ready to go”,
Plaintiff disputes this. (Doc. 66-1, p. 8). Plaintiff was
given antibiotic and Motrin upon discharge (Id. at
9), and was not allowed to continue the painkiller Lortab due
to IDOC policy prohibiting narcotic medication administration
outside the HCU. (Doc. 64-2, p. 4).
April 18, 2013, Defendant Larson examined Plaintiff in
segregation for a sick call. (Id.). Plaintiff
indicated that he had been feeling poorly, and Defendant
Larson states that, upon examining Plaintiff, he found
Plaintiff's temperature to be 100 degrees and his blood
pressure of 150/90. (Id.). Plaintiff, however,
disputes the temperature and blood pressure readings.
Plaintiff states that Defendant Larson told him that
Plaintiff had a temperature of 103 - 104 and that his blood
pressure was higher than 150/90. (Doc. 66-1, p. 12).
Regardless, Defendant Larson increased Plaintiff's
antibiotic dosage (Id. at 11) and secured an
appointment for Plaintiff to see Dr. Swanson the next day
(Doc. 64-2, p. 4 - 5).
followed up with Dr. Swanson on April 19, 2013, and Dr.
Swanson ordered that Plaintiff continue on the elevated
antibiotic dosage twice a day and take an over the counter
antihistamine. (Id. at 5). On April 23, 2013,
Defendant Larson made a request to the Collegial Review Board
that Plaintiff be allowed to see Dr. Swanson again, and
Plaintiff saw Dr. Swanson again on April 25, 2013.
(Id. at 5). Dr. Swanson found Plaintiff to be
healing as expected, indicated that the area would heal in
two to four weeks, and that Plaintiff should follow up in two
to three weeks. (Id.). The same day, Defendant
Larson approved Dr. Swanson's recommendations to have
Plaintiff follow up in two to four weeks. (Id.).
2, 2013, during a sick call visit with Plaintiff by Defendant
Larson, Plaintiff told Defendant Larson that his mouth was
improving and requested Tylenol for pain, Excedrin for
headaches, and hydrocortisone for rash and eczema, all of
which were prescribed by Dr. Larson. (Id.). On May
7, 2013, Defendant Larson requested authorization for the
Collegial Review Board to send Plaintiff to visit Dr. Swanson
for a follow up appointment in two to three weeks, and the
Board responded by sending Defendant Larson a “90 day
global” authorization. (Id.).
saw Dr. Swanson on May 16, 2013, and Dr. Swanson noted that
Plaintiff was healing well from the prior surgery.
(Id.). He also noted that Plaintiff complained of
pain in tooth number four and found mobility in that tooth.
(Id.). Dr. Swanson ordered scheduling of the removal
of tooth four. (Id.). On May 21, 2013, Defendant
Larson saw Plaintiff during a sick call to follow up after
Plaintiff's visit with Dr. Swanson. (Id.).
Plaintiff told Defendant Larson that three days prior he had
blood and drainage from the surgical site. (Id.).
Defendant Larson found good healing in the mouth, and
prescribed the requested medications of Excedrin Migraine,
Eucerin cream, hydrocortisone cream, and Tylenol.
(Id.). Plaintiff was transferred from Big Muddy on
June 19, 2013. (Id. at 6). He filed suit on August
27, 2014, pleading counts of deliberate indifference in
violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Larson
and Furlong. (Docs. 1, 8).
Court notes that while Plaintiff filed a Response to the
summary judgment motion filed by Defendants Furlong and
Larson, he did not file a Response to Defendant Nalley's
motion. Since Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant
Nalley's motion, the Court considers the facts set forth
by Defendant Nalley as undisputed. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(e); SDIL-LR 7.1(c). See also Smith v. Lamz, 321
F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003); Flynn v. Sandahl, 58
F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir. 1995) (a failure to respond
constitutes an admission that there are no undisputed
material facts). As the Court is ...