The opinion of the court was delivered by: Noel L. Hillman, U.S.D.J.
1. Blair Jones, who is currently incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, filed a Complaint (Docket Entry #1) against the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and several medical and non-medical officials.
2. On August 12, 2010, this Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint stating an Eighth Amendment medical care claim. (Dkt. 7, 8.) This Court found that, while Plaintiff's allegations showed that he had a serious medical need concerning his neck and back, his allegations did not show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
3. On September 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on November 3, 2010, he filed a memorandum of law in support of the Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 9, 14.)
4. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff essentially repeats the allegations in the Complaint and he expresses his disagreement with this Court's ruling. He alleges the following additional facts:
Doctor Anthony A. Chiuro recommended that Plaintiff be operated on to relieve his pain and suffering after Dr. Chiuro had "read" Plaintiff's MRI on or about July 27, 2010. In fact Dr. Chiuro ordered a myelography be performed on Plaintiff which shows that there is a disk osteophyte complex encroaching on the ventral subarachnoid space causing encroachment on the ventral surface of the spinal cord at C4-C5 . . . .
Plaintiff has suffered for years now with severe neck and back pain that could/should be relieved through surgery that has been, and continues to be withheld by the very same people that the Court has entrusted Plaintiff to . . .
As previously stated, a neuro-surgeon has evaluated Plaintiff's MRI and determined that Plaintiff needs surgery to correct the disks in his neck, and the myelography confirmed this diagnosis.
The defendants made a concerted effort to prevent Plaintiff from consulting with a neuro-surgeon for some five years, and not until Plaintiff filed his Civil Action did the defendants allow Plaintiff to consult with a neuro-surgeon, and the determination by the neuro-surgeon proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "prison officials" 'conclusion' was wrong, and they knew it was wrong all along.
The Regional Director's (defendant [D]odrill) decision denying Plaintiff's appeal states that prison officials determined that an evaluation by a neuro-surgeon is not clinically indicated. He is merely 'parroting' what the prison officials said, showing that he is blatantly indifferent to Plaintiff's medical condition. His was yet another unqualified opinion.
The defendants are obligated to make sure Plaintiff is provided with the proper medical care. Plaintiff has been suffering since before his arrest, and he knew that he would have to have surgery to correct the disks in his back. He has been signing up for sick call and telling the doctors and physician assistants for years that he is in severe pain, and all the defendants did was prescribe pain medications for Plaintiff to mask the problem. All the pain pills do is take the edge off. The Defendants know that pain pills will not 'cure what ails you.' They have been 'slow walking' Plaintiff for years because they know that it will take corrective surgery to stop the pain . . . and they're trying to save the BOP a few bucks by letting plaintiff suffer . . . . If they were any kind of doctors at all they should be able to make an educated guess as to why Plaintiff is in such severe pain . . . . Although the defendant doctors are not neuro-surgeons, they should be able to 'read' an MRI to some degree, if they are any kind of doctor at all. And they know that the next logical step is to have a neuro-surgeon 'read' it because he is an expert at reading MRI's, and yet the defendants (all of them) made no effort to allow Plaintiff to have a consultation with a neuro-surgeon until Plaintiff filed his civil action. Now the defendants have all of a sudden changed their minds? . . . . This is gross negligence . . . .
Defendant [D]odrill (regional director) didn't even bother to look into Plaintiff's medical file and/or get a second opinion as to whether Plaintiff should be allowed to consult with a neuro-surgeon. All he did was parrot what the other defendants said, and he would have denied Plaintiff's ...