The opinion of the court was delivered by: FREDA WOLFSON, Magistrate Judge
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on separate Motions for
Summary Judgment filed by Michael Murphy, the former Health
Services Administrator at the Camden County Correctional Facility
("CCCF"), and Corrections Officer M. Swain, Corrections Officer
R. Hicks and Sergeant Davis ("CCCF Defendants"). Plaintiff's
Complaint alleges civil rights violations pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court grants both Motions
for Summary Judgment.*fn1 I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff's allegations arise out of an altercation with CCCF
Corrections Officers on September 22, 2003, and his medical
treatment at CCCF following that incident. Plaintiff, a former
pretrial detainee at CCCF, alleges that on that date, Defendant
Swain insisted that Plaintiff eat from a breakfast tray that bore
another person's name. Compl. at 6; Plaintiff's Pretrial
Memorandum ("Pl. Pretrial Mem.") at 1. When Swain opened the door
to his cell, Plaintiff stepped out to show him that the tray
given to him was not his tray, and refused to get back in his
cell when Swain ordered that he do so. Compl. at 6. After
Plaintiff requested that Swain call the Sergeant, Swain allegedly
tried to grab Plaintiff, then aimed his mace at Plaintiff's face.
Id. Plaintiff then ran from Swain, and hit Swain with the
breakfast tray as he was running from him. Id.
Plaintiff ran through a gate to the sally port, locking the
gate behind him as he passed through. Once in the sally port,
Defendant Hicks threw Plaintiff to the ground and held him there
until someone opened the door for Swain in response to Swain's
request to "let me get him." Id. Sergeant Davis observed Hicks
holding Plaintiff down and handing him over to Swain. Id. Once
Swain had control of Plaintiff, he allegedly bumped him up
against the walls of the hallway and a steel corner off a doorway
while escorting him down the hall. Id. The incident left
Plaintiff unconscious, and with a cut above his eye that required
Plaintiff alleges that once he awoke, Swain escorted him to
Sergeant Davis' office. Id. Sergeant Davis then escorted
Plaintiff to the CCCF medical area, where he was cleaned up and
sent to Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center for treatment. Id.
There, Plaintiff received stitches on his eye. Id. After
returning from the emergency room at Our Lady of Lourdes,
Plaintiff was kept in the medical area at CCCF for "several days," where he was
treated with antibiotics and analgesics. Affidavit of Michael
Murphy, R.N. ("Murphy Aff.") ¶ 5. Plaintiff was then transferred
to solitary confinement for 30 days based on the incident with
Swain. Compl. at 7.
Plaintiff asserts that despite repeated requests to the medical
department, the medical Director, and medical runners who pass
medicine to inmates, he was not taken out of solitary confinement
to have his stitches removed. Compl. at 7; Dep. Of Thomas J.
Jones, Exh. A to Murphy Motion for Summary Judgment at
71:1-73:15. Plaintiff's medical chart reflects that a nurse was
directed to remove his sutures on September 28, 2003. Murphy Aff.
¶ 6. Plaintiff's chart further notes that he refused treatment.
Id. The chart does not reflect that Plaintiff made any further
complaints about the wound or that he sought any additional
treatment. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. Murphy never met, saw or treated
Plaintiff during the time he was the Health Services
Administrator at CCCF, and received no grievance forms relating
to Plaintiff's medical care or treatment. Murphy Aff. ¶¶ 3-4.
Plaintiff contends that as a result of the September 22, 2003
incident, he sustained injuries including head trauma, eye
laceration, eye swelling, facial muscle damage, twisted right
knee ligaments, post traumatic emotional distress, temporary
double vision, neck pains, and serious headaches. Compl. at 11.
Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on December 10, 2003,
naming as Defendants Warden David Owens, CCCF Medical Department,
Camden County Department of Corrections, Deputy Warden Berry and
Scibel Associates as Defendants, in addition to Swain, Hicks,
Davis and Murphy. By Order dated May 27, 2004, the Court sua
sponte dismissed Defendants Warden Owens, CCCF Medical Department, Camden County Department of
Corrections, Deputy Warden Berry and Scibel Associates. See
Jones v. Owens, et al., No. 03-5850 (D.N.J. May 27, 2004).
Plaintiff's remaining claims are that Swain and Hicks used
excessive force against him; that Hicks and Davis failed to
intervene and protect him from Swain; and that Murphy failed to
provide him with adequate medical treatment.
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A genuine issue of
material fact is one that will permit a reasonable jury to return
a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To show that a genuine issue of
material fact exists, the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere
allegations, but must present actual evidence in support thereof.
Id. at 249 (citing First Nat'l Bank of Arizona v. Cities Svc.
Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290 (1968)). In evaluating the evidence, the
Court must "`view the inferences to be drawn from the underlying
facts in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving] party.'"
Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 276-77 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 200 F.3d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 1999)).
The pleadings of pro se plaintiffs are to be construed
liberally. Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004)
(citing Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003)).
Thus, the Court will "apply the applicable law, irrespective of
whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name."
Dluhos, 321 F.3d at 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Higgins v.
Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)).*fn2 However, even though pro
se pleadings are entitled to liberal construction, the ...