Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. McGann

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 23, 2018

JOSEPH SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. STEPHANY MCGANN, et al., Defendants.

          Joseph Scott, Plaintiff Pro Se.

          OPINION

          JEROME B. SIMANDLE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Scott's (“Plaintiff”), submission of a civil rights complaint, Docket Entry 1. At this time, the Court must review the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the complaint will proceed in part.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Dr. Stephany McGann, Nurse Denise Rodriguez, Candice Johnson, and the Utilization Review Committee of FCI Fairton. He also seeks to bring a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim against the United States. The following factual allegations are taken from the complaint and are accepted for purposes of this screening only. The Court has made no findings as to the truth of Plaintiff's allegations.

         Plaintiff is a convicted and sentenced federal prisoner currently confined at FCI Fairton, New Jersey. Plaintiff states that he was taken to an emergency room for surgery on his rotator cuff and bicep on August 17, 2016. Complaint ¶ 10. He was told he would need physical therapy after the surgery. Id. He began physical therapy in a clinic outside of the prison on November 28, 2016 and was told to begin “home therapy.” Id. ¶ 11. Plaintiff went back to the physical therapy clinic on December 22, 2016. Id. ¶ 12. The therapist told Plaintiff he had “Anterior Deltoid Atrophy (Muscle Atrophy) with limitations with passive internal movements.” Id. Plaintiff received therapeutic exercises and was told to follow-up in one week. Id.

         In March 2017, Plaintiff requested physical therapy from Nurse Rodriguez. Id. ¶ 13. She responded on March 6, 2017 that his request had been denied. Id. ¶ 14. Neither Nurse Rodriguez nor Dr. McGann conducted an examination of Plaintiff's shoulder before denying his request for physical therapy. Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff filed a grievance, but he did not receive any relief. Id. ¶ 17. He did not receive any further post-surgical care, just blood pressure checks. Id.

         Plaintiff continued to have “extreme” pain and loss of motion in his shoulder. Id. ¶ 18. Nurse Rodriguez told Plaintiff the Utilization Review Committee (“URC”) would likely deny his requests for physical therapy due to cost. Id. ¶ 20. The URC denied the physical therapy request on March 24, 2017. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff met with Dr. McGann, the final decisionmaker on the URC, on April 11, 2017. Id. ¶¶ 22-23. Dr. McGann told Plaintiff “he will not be receiving any physical therapy or referred to an orthopedic specialist due to the expensive cost.” Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff met with Dr. McGann again on July 10, 2017, at which time she told him to get over-the-counter pain medication from the prison store. Id. ¶ 24.

         Plaintiff asks the Court to order defendants to arrange for his prescribed physical therapy as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A. Standards for a Sua Sponte Dismissal

         Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996) (“PLRA”), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis.

         In determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint, the Court must be mindful to construe it liberally in favor of the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (following Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3d Cir. 1992). According to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, “a pleading that offers ‘labels or conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'” 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim, [1] the complaint must allege “sufficient factual matter” to show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMS Shadyside,578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Fair Wind Sailing, Inc. v. Dempster,764 F.3d 303, 308 n.3 (3d Cir. 2014) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.