The opinion of the court was delivered by: Linares, District Judge.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc.‟s and Dr. John Hochberg‟s ("Defendants") joint motion for summary judgment. [D.E. No.55.] Defendants move for summary judgment with respect to pro se Plaintiff Carl Eakles ("Mr. Eakles") claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. No oral argument was held. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, Defendants‟ motion is granted in its entirety.
The facts herein are set forth in Defendants‟ Statement of Material Facts. Since Mr. Eakles never filed a counter-statement of facts, the Court will accept Defendants‟ facts as true, with appropriate record support.
Mr. Eakles is an inmate of the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("NJDOC") at the Adult Treatment and Diagnostic Center ("ADTC") in Avenel, New Jersey. Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS") was a private corporation providing medical services in 2005 for the NJDOC. Defendant Dr. John Hochberg was an independent contractor of CMS at the ADTC.
Mr. Eakles alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Specifically, Mr. Eakles alleges that he received a prophylactic medication -- Permethrin -- for a scabies outbreak that caused him to lose consciousness, strike his head, and that he received inadequate care for the resulting injuries.
The medical records submitted in support of Defendants‟ motion indicate that Mr. Eakles received medical care for his injuries at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital,*fn1 Saint Francis Medical Center,*fn2 and the infirmary at the ADTC.*fn3
A court shall grant summary judgment under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
On a summary judgment motion, the moving party must show, first, that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp.v.Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to present evidence that a genuine issue of material fact compels a trial. Id. at 324. In so presenting, the non-moving party must offer specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact, not just "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). Thus, the non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in its pleadings. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Further, the non-moving party cannot rely on unsupported assertions, bare allegations, or speculation to defeat summary judgment. See Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 1999). The Court must, however, consider all facts and their reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Pa. Coal Ass=n v. Babbitt, 63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995).
Where, as here, the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must construe the complaint liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); id. ("[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal ...