United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at Hill
Correctional Center brought the present lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need. The matter comes before this Court for
ruling on the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.
(Docs. 55, 61). The motions are granted.
judgment should be granted “if 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). All facts must be construed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable
inferences must be drawn in his favor. Ogden v.
Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010).
The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In order to be a
“genuine” issue, there must be more than
“some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). “Only disputes
over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under
the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
was incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center
(“Pontiac”) from February 23, 2011 through March
16, 2013. Defendants were employed at the facility in the
following capacities: Defendant Tilden was a physician;
Defendant Ojelade was a physician's assistant; Defendant
Pierce was the Warden; and, Defendant Birkel was a medical
Tilden first examined Plaintiff on March 1, 2011 for
complaints of hearing loss and loss of balance with
occasional vertigo. Based upon the symptoms Plaintiff
reported, Defendant Tilden ordered a cranial x-ray, noted the
possibility that more tests would be required should these
symptoms persist, and scheduled a follow-up appointment in 30
days. The cranial x-ray disclosed nothing significant.
when Plaintiff reported similar symptoms at his March 30,
2011 follow-up appointment, Defendant Tilden ordered
additional x-rays, lab work, and sought approval for an MRI
and consultation with a specialist. Defendant Tilden received
approval the next day. Plaintiff underwent the MRI, and he
was examined by specialists at the neurology clinic at the
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) within the next
between Defendant Tilden's first and second examinations,
Plaintiff filed a grievance dated March 24, 2011 seeking a
referral to an ear, nose, and throat doctor and the results
of his x-rays. After Defendant Pierce declined to expedite
the grievance as an emergency, Plaintiff submitted the
grievance via the normal channels. The grievance officer
ultimately recommended denial of the grievance in late April
2011 after medical staff reported that Plaintiff was
receiving treatment. Defendant Pierce concurred with this
Tilden reviewed Plaintiff's MRI results the day they were
received at the prison. Two days later, on May 15, 2011,
Defendant Tilden discussed the results with Plaintiff. The
diagnosis: an “enhancing mass approximately 4 cm in
diameter at the left pontine angle that extended into the
left internal auditory canal most consistent with a
vestibular schwannoma.” In layman's terms,
Plaintiff had a non-cancerous tumor in his ear canal.
was thereafter scheduled and taken to examinations with a
neurologist and neurosurgeon at UIC, the latter of whom
recommended surgery to remove the tumor. Four days later, on
June 20, 2011, Plaintiff underwent a successful surgery. He
remained at UIC for the next month.
Plaintiff's discharge, the UIC doctors recommended
prescriptions for Tylenol 3, Dexamethasone, Pepcid, ocular
solution every two hours, and ocular lubricant every four
hours. Plaintiff was admitted to the infirmary when he
returned to Pontiac, and Defendant Tilden prescribed the
recommended medications. Plaintiff remained in the infirmary
for approximately one month before he was released back into
August 26, 2011, Plaintiff returned to UIC. UIC doctors ruled
out a potential complication arising from the surgery and
recommended that Plaintiff return for a follow-up examination
in one year. In August 2012, the UIC specialist noted that
the tumor had not returned and that Plaintiff's recovery
was going well. Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he
has received regular checkups at UIC since the surgery.
Pl.'s Dep. 55:8-12.
October 2011, Defendant Ojelade extended Plaintiff's
then-existing prescription for Motrin for an additional three
months. In May 2012, Defendant Ojelade noted that Plaintiff
had normal muscle tone and ...