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.

Rogerss v. Wexford Health Care Sources

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 27, 2017

MARCUS ROGERS, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH CARE SOURCES, DR. SHAH, PHIL MARTIN, and ROGERICK MATTICKS, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Marcus Rogers, an inmate in East Moline Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 relating to Defendants' treatment of pain in Plaintiff's back, neck, and shoulder at Robinson Correctional Center. (Doc. 14). This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Amended 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.

         An action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an objective standard that refers to a claim that any reasonable person would find meritless. Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir. 2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross “the line between possibility and plausibility.” Id. at 557. At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).

         Upon careful review of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to allow this case to proceed past the threshold stage.

         The Amended Complaint

         The Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) contains the following allegations: Plaintiff went to Dr. Shah in March 2016 for “extreme pain” in his back, neck, and shoulder. (Doc. 14, p. 4). Shah told Plaintiff he had a pulled muscle and needed to lose weight. Id. Plaintiff's “pain was so severe, [he] couldn't sleep nor could [he] move [his] head and neck.” Id. Plaintiff “went back to Dr. Shah again” because he was still in pain, and he was given more ibuprofen, which did not work. Id. Plaintiff “was in pain the entire time.” Id. Plaintiff could barely move because of the pain in his neck, back, and shoulder, as well as in his arm at certain times. Id. Shah ordered X-rays on March 18, 2016, but Plaintiff is unsure why because Shah told him his problem could be a pulled muscle or arthritis, which Plaintiff did not believe would show in an X-ray. Id. Shah also told Plaintiff it could be a pinched nerve but refused to give him medication. Id. Shah knew that Plaintiff was in severe pain. Id.

         On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff asked Shah about an MRI, but Shah responded by telling Plaintiff to lose weight and drink more water. Id. Plaintiff asked Shah for an MRI again, but Shah again responded that Plaintiff needed to lose weight and drink more water. (Doc. 14, pp. 4-5). Plaintiff did not receive the proper treatment, and his pain “was still on the level 10 or higher.” (Doc. 14, p. 5). Plaintiff's thumb was numb and he had pain in his back, shoulder, and neck. Id. Shah was “very unprofessional” and “not one time did Dr. Shah touch [Plaintiff]” or “show concern about [his] pain.” Id. Shah “never gave [Plaintiff] a lay in.” Id. Plaintiff had to go to work in severe pain. Id. “At this time a month and a half went by.” Id. Plaintiff is still in pain, and he has not received an MRI. Id.

         On April 19, 2016, Defendant Phil Martin “stated the X-rays showed mild degenerative changes.” Id. Plaintiff questions how the X-ray could show mild degenerative changes since X-rays only show bones. Id. Martin did not order an MRI for Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff telling everyone that he did not have any bone pain and that it was a pinched nerve. Id. Plaintiff claims that “not one time did anyone show concern” and “it's been over a year.” Id. Plaintiff still has not received an MRI and still has pain in his neck and shoulder, plus numbness in his thumb. (Doc. 14, p. 6). Back pain comes and goes for Plaintiff, and he has trouble sleeping at times. Id.

         “Everyone from Dr. Shah, Phil Martin, and Rogerick Matticks” did not “step up” and order Plaintiff an MRI. Id. “The above defendants clearly knew of the Plaintiff's continuing problems and pain associated with the problems in his neck and shoulders, yet ...


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.