United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
G. WILKERSON, United States Magistrate Judge
matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge David R.
Herndon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a
Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 2) filed by Plaintiff, Brian DeBlasio. For
the following reasons, it is RECOMMENDED the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED
and the Court adopt the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Brian DeBlasio, who is currently incarcerated in Lawrence
Correctional Center, brought this pro se action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court conducted a preliminary review
of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the
following claim was allowed to proceed:
COUNT 1 - Defendants responded to Plaintiff's serious
medical needs (chronic back and abdominal pain, chronic
constipation, fractured vertebrae, and elevated blood
pressure) with deliberate indifference, in violation of the
(Doc. 8, p. 8)
September of 2015, DeBlasio began experiencing chronic
abdominal pain and constipation, as well as severe back pain
and hypertension (Doc. 1, p. 3). Between September 2015 and
July 2016, DeBlasio's primary physician at the prison was
Dr. Coe (Doc. 1, p. 12). DeBlasio was seen by Dr. Coe on
approximately fourteen occasions during this time period, and
alleges he repeatedly complained of chronic abdominal pain to
Dr. Coe but received no treatment (Doc. 1, p. 12).
Specifically, on November 14, 2015, Dr. Coe prescribed
DeBlasio “Milk of Magnesia” to treat his chronic
constipation (Doc. 1, p. 14). Five days later, DeBlasio was
taken to the healthcare unit, via wheelchair, for severe
abdominal pain (Doc. 1, p. 13). The nurse that examined
DeBlasio observed he had a distended abdominal area and
referred him for treatment with Dr. Coe (Doc. 1, p. 13). Dr.
Coe examined DeBlasio the next day and diagnosed him with
“abdominal pain, ” but failed to provide any
treatment (Doc. 1, p. 14). Instead, Dr. Coe returned DeBlasio
to his housing unit with a blood pressure of 155/101 (Doc. 1,
days later, on November 30, 2015, DeBlasio became dizzy and
lost consciousness as a result of severe abdominal pain (Doc.
1, p. 4). He was taken to the emergency room and treated by
Dr. West, who concluded DeBlasio's abdominal pain and
elevated blood pressure were connected and prescribed
medication for both conditions (Doc. 1, p. 4). After
returning from the emergency room, DeBlasio complained about
his continuing abdominal pain and requested the medication
Dr. West prescribed (Doc. 1, pp. 12- 13). DeBlasio alleges
Dr. Coe refused to provide him with the prescribed medication
(Doc. 1, pp. 12- 13).
addition, DeBlasio alleges he informed Dr. Coe on
approximately four occasions that he was passing blood in his
stool, but Dr. Coe did not order any tests or provide any
treatment for those symptoms (Doc. 1, pp. 14-15). Rather, on
December 17, 2016, a different physician tested
DeBlasio's stool (Doc. 1, p. 14). The testing revealed
blood in DeBlasio's feces. Id.
following month, Dr. Lochard examined DeBlasio and discovered
he had been ingesting “Milk of Magnesia” for over
a year (Doc. 1, p. 16). Dr. Lochard immediately discontinued
the prescription, indicating that Milk of Magnesia should
only be taken for a few weeks at a time because it can weaken
an individual's intestinal area (Doc. 1, p. 16). Instead,
Dr. Lochard prescribed Lactulose (Doc. 1, p. 16).
months later, on October 24, 2017, DeBlasio was seen by Dr.
Ahmed and evaluated for a referral to a gastroenterologist
(Doc. 42, p. 3). Dr. Ahmed determined DeBlasio did not need
to see a gastroenterologist but that a referral for a
colonoscopy was appropriate (Doc. 42, p. 3). A colonoscopy
was performed on November 14, 2017 at Carle Foundation
Hospital (Doc. 51, p. 1). The colonoscopy report states
DeBlasio's colon is normal and that there was no cancer
or large polyps present (Doc. 51-1, p. 1). The only
recommendation resulting from the procedure was that DeBlasio
undergo another colonoscopy in three years (Doc. 51-1, p. 1).
preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic
remedy” for which there must be a “clear
showing” that Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)
(quoting 11A CHARLES ALANWRIGHT, ARTHUR RMILLER, & MARY
KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2948 (5th ed.
1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is “to
minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate
resolution of the lawsuit.” Faheem-Elv.
Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). The movant
has the burden of demonstrating: (1) A reasonable likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) No. adequate remedy at law; and
(3) Irreparable harm absent the injunction. Planned
Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept. of
Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012).