United States District Court, D. New Jersey
B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
Willie Williams, is a former prisoner that was incarcerated
in the Atlantic County Justice Facility (“ACJF”).
He is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint against
Defendants Doctor Robinson and CFG Health Systems, LLC
(incorrectly named as CFG Health Care Systems) alleging a
violation of his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical
treatment. Presently pending before the Court is
Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32).
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion for
summary judgment. For the following reasons, Defendants'
motion for summary judgment is granted.
a diabetic, alleges that during his detention at the ACJF,
Defendants Dr. Robinson and CFG Health Systems, LLC
(“CFG”) failed to administer long-acting insulin
(Lantus) to him. (See ECF No. 1 at p. 4). Plaintiff claims
that the denial of insulin could have caused him to go into a
diabetic coma or suffer a stroke or heart attack. (See
arrived at the ACJF on March 9, 2016. (See ECF No. 32, Ex. E
at 67:22 to 68:1). Available medical records indicate that
Plaintiff was evaluated by the medical department upon
intake. (See ECF No. 32, Ex. D at 81-82). Plaintiff was
identified as having Type 2 diabetes and his medications were
noted to include Lantus, a long-lasting insulin. (See
Id. at 78, 81-82). Plaintiff was ordered a special
diet, laboratory tests, and low dose insulin on a sliding
scale as chronic care for his diabetes. (See Id. at
on March 10, 2016, Plaintiff's blood sugar levels were
checked twice a day, during which time he received low dose
insulin on a sliding scale. (See Id. at 166; ECF No.
32, Ex. E at 74:1-17, 96:1-5). On March 10 and March 11,
2016, medical department staff contacted multiple local
pharmacies to confirm Plaintiff's medications, including
Lantus. (See ECF No. 32, Ex. D at 102, 105). On
March 12, 2016, Plaintiff was prescribed a reorder of Lantus.
(See Id. at 102). Plaintiff began receiving Lantus
on March 16, 2016. (See Id. at 166). Plaintiff
claims that the only period he was without Lantus was from
March 9 to 17, 2016. (See ECF No. 1 at 4; ECF No.
32, Ex. E at 95:14-24).
judgment is warranted only where “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 a judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving
party bears the initial burden of demonstrating to the court
that there is an absence of evidence to support the
non-moving party's case. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Conoshenti v.
Public Serv. Electric & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 140
(3d Cir. 2004). When the moving party has met this burden,
the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). The mere existence
of some evidence favoring the non-moving party, however, will
not defeat the motion. There must be enough evidence with
respect to a particular issue to enable a reasonable jury to
find in favor of the non-moving party. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); McGreevy v.
Stroup, 413 F.3d 359, 363-64 (3d Cir. 2005). In
evaluating the evidence at the summary judgment stage, the
court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its
favor. Matreale v. New Jersey Dep't of Military &
Veterans Affairs, 487 F.3d 150, 152 (3d Cir. 2007).
Inadequate Medical Care Claims
unclear whether Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee or a
convicted prisoner during the course of the actions
complained of in his complaint. Accordingly, the Court will
examine Plaintiff's claims of inadequate medical care
under both the Fourteenth Amendment's due process
standard (applicable to pretrial detainees) and the Eighth
Amendment standard (applicable to convicted prisoners).
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
Section 1, guarantees that “[n]o State shall ...
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. The
Fourteenth Amendment protects a pretrial detainee from
“conditions of confinement, including his health care
or lack thereof, that amounted to punishment.”
Montgomery v. Aparatis Dist. Co., 607 Fed.Appx. 184,
187 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Hubbard v. Taylor, 399
F.3d 150, 166 (3d Cir. 2005)). In the Third Circuit, the
analysis of a pretrial detainee's claim of inadequate
medical services is guided by the standard used for
inadequate medical services claims by convicted prisoners
under the Eighth Amendment. Id. Regardless,
“[u]nder any standard ...