United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division
G. Reinhard United States District Court Judge
reasons set forth below, defendant's motion for summary
judgment  is granted. Plaintiff's motion for
extension of time to respond to defendant's reply  is
denied because Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 does not provide for a
response to the reply. Plaintiff's motion for attorney
representation  is denied. This case is terminated.
Maurice Donald, presently in state custody at Dixon
Correctional Center, brought this action pro se
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that
defendant nurse Kristina Mershon provided him with inadequate
medical care in violation of his constitutional
rights.Before the court is defendant's motion
for summary judgment .
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, defendant served him
with a “Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing
Motion for Summary Judgment” as required by Local Rule
56.2. . This notice explained how to respond to
defendant's summary judgment motion and Rule 56.1
statement and cautioned plaintiff that the court would deem
defendant's factual contentions admitted if he failed to
follow the procedures delineated in Local Rule 56.1.
failed to respond to defendant's undisputed facts.
Instead, plaintiff submitted an answer to defendant's
motion for summary judgment. . Plaintiff's answer
generally disputes defendants' version of events but does
not directly respond to the statements of fact with citations
to the record. The court thus considers defendant's
properly supported statements of fact to which plaintiff did
not properly respond, admitted. The court considers
plaintiff's answer to defendant's motion but not any
contested facts included therein.
is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections at Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois.
(Def. St. of Facts, Dkt. 34, ¶ 1.) Defendant is a nurse
practitioner employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc. at
Dixon. (Id. at ¶ 2.) She is licensed by the
state of Illinois as a board-certified family nurse
practitioner and was licensed while treating plaintiff.
1, 2017, plaintiff was housed in building 26, cell 46.
(Id. at ¶ 3.) Sometime around noon, plaintiff
was climbing down from the top bunk when his left foot went
downwards onto an exposed screw. (Id. at
¶¶3-4.) Plaintiff pulled his left foot off the
screw, asked his cellmate to call correctional staff as he
noticed that his foot was bleeding, and an officer came to
plaintiff's cell to take plaintiff to the health care
unit. (Id. at ¶ 4.) At the health care unit
plaintiff saw a registered nurse (not defendant) who
completed an offender injury report. (Id. at ¶
nurse took plaintiff's vital signs and noted that he had
an approximately 1-inch wide puncture wound to the bottom of
his left foot with minimal bleeding and noted that the
puncture wound was not deep. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
According to the injury report, the nurse cleansed the wound,
planned for an x-ray of his foot, and referred plaintiff to
defendant for further treatment. (Id.)
on May 1, 2017, defendant Mershon examined plaintiff's
left foot and noted the presence of a puncture wound, and an
x-ray of plaintiff's left foot indicated there was no
foreign object still in plaintiff's foot. (Id.
at ¶ 7.) Defendant Mershon prescribed plaintiff a two
week “lay-in” so he would not have to go to the
yard or work. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Defendant Mershon
also gave plaintiff a permit so that he could wear shower
shoes for two weeks to help keep pressure off his foot while
it was healing. (Id.) Defendant Mershon also gave
plaintiff a two-week low bunk permit so he would not have to
climb to a top bunk while his foot healed. (Id. at
¶ 9.) She also ordered daily dressing changes for
plaintiff's left foot and instructed the nursing staff to
use bulky dressings, and to avoid using adhesive dressings.
(Id.) Defendant also scheduled plaintiff for a
return visit in two weeks. (Id.) Plaintiff also
received a three-day supply of Levaquin 500mg, as a
prophylactic antibiotic. (Id.)
did not believe that crutches were medically necessary for
plaintiff at the time. (Id. at ¶ 10.) He was
walking under his own power and reported no difficulties.
(Id.) However, when plaintiff returned on May 2,
2017, complaining of pain, she provided him with crutches.
(Id. at ¶ 12.) On May 1, 2017, defendant
Mershon also did not believe that prescription pain
medication was necessary, and plaintiff did not request any.
(Id. at ¶ 11.)
underwent dressing changes every day for a month.
(Id. at ¶13.) During his daily dressing
changes, the nursing staff would look at plaintiff's foot
to see if it was bleeding, or if there was any pus, and would
spray his foot with a wound cleaner and tape it back up.
6, 2017, plaintiff returned to the health care unit and saw a
registered nurse for a complaint of pain in his left foot and
a request for pain medication. (Id. at ¶ 15.)
The nurse's note indicates that on that date
plaintiff's puncture wound was healing with scant
drainage. (Id.) The nurse also noted that he was
using a set of crutches to ambulate and noted that she
planned to continue plaintiff's dressing changes and
provided him with Tylenol for his pain. (Id.)
8, 2017, plaintiff returned to the health care unit and saw a
nurse for a complaint of on-going pain in the bottom of his
left foot. (Id. at ¶ 16.) According to the May
8, 2017, note, the bottom of plaintiff's left foot showed
no redness, no swelling, and no drainage. (Id.) The
note indicates that plaintiff was using crutches and that
plaintiff was provided with a prescription for Ibuprofen
200mg 1-2 tabs, three times per day as needed, for three days
to address his complaints of foot pain. (Id.)
12, 2017, plaintiff returned to the health care unit and saw
a nurse for a complaint of on-going pain in the bottom of his
left foot. According to the medical notes, the puncture wound
to the bottom of plaintiff's left foot was scabbed over
without drainage or odor. (Id. at ¶ 17.)
Plaintiff returned to the health care unit again on May 13,
2017 and saw a nurse for further treatment of his puncture
wound. (Id. at ¶ 18.) The nurse noted that
plaintiff's puncture wound was scabbed, healing well, had
scant drainage, and showed no signs or symptoms of infection.
(Id.) Plaintiff was instructed to avoid putting
increased pressure on the site of the puncture.
(Id.) On May 14, 2017, plaintiff again saw a nurse
for further treatment of his puncture wound. (Id. at
¶ 19.) At that time, the nurse noted that
plaintiff's wound was dry and healing well, and no
drainage was noted, and plaintiff continued to use crutches
to walk. (Id.)
15, 2017, defendant saw plaintiff for a follow-up appointment
regarding the puncture wound to the bottom of his left foot
and plaintiff reported that the puncture wound in his foot
was improving. (Id. at ¶ 20.) He also reported
some continued pain while walking. (Id.) Defendant
Mershon examined plaintiff's left foot and noted that the
puncture wound was healing well with no surrounding erythema
(redness) or open areas. (Id. ¶ 21.) She noted
that the puncture wound had a scab over it, that plaintiff
had full range of motion in his left foot and ankle, and that
his circulatory, motor, and sensory functions
(“CMS”) in ...