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.

Gelardos v. Campbell

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia

November 10, 2016

MARINOS N. GELARDOS, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES CAMPBELL, et al, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION (GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

          HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Marinos N. Gelardos, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.[1] The Court construes Gelardos's Complaint to assert the following claims:

Claim One: Defendant Campbell violated Gelardos's Eighth Amendment[2] rights when he:
(a) discontinued Gelardos's medications for nerve disorder, pain, and gastroesophageal reflux disease ("GERD") (Compl. ¶¶ 10-15, ECF No. I);
(b) failed to administer injections for soft tissue damage in Gelardos's knees (id. ¶ 21(b)); and,
(c) failed to refer Gelardos to specialists for his medical issues (id. ¶36.)
Claim Two: Defendant Allen violated Gelardos's rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to refer him to specialists for his medical issues. (Id.)
Claim Three: Defendant Allen violated Gelardos's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment[3] by failing to adequately respond to his requests for medical services. (Id. ¶ 23.)
Claim Four: Defendants Ray and Schilling violated Gelardos's right to due process by "fail[ing] to investigate [Gelardos's] health problems during the exhaustive remedy process." (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.)
Claim Five: Defendants Ray and Schilling violated Gelardos's rights under the Eighth Amendment by "overlooking the seriousness of [his] claims in the exhaustive remedies." (Id. ¶ 38.)

         Gelardos seeks damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. at 5-6.)[4]

         By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on July 15, 2016, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment previously filed by Defendants Ray and Schilling (collectively, "Defendants") with respect to Claim Four, but denied it without prejudice with respect to Claim Five. Gelardos v. Campbell, No. 3:15CV183, 2016 WL 3876434, at *4 (E.D. Va. July 15, 2016). The Court directed Defendants to resubmit a Motion for Summary Judgment addressing Claim Five within thirty days. Id.

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants on August 10, 2016 in response to the Court's July 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order with respect to Claim Five. (ECF No. 29.) Despite receiving Roseboro[5] notice and an extension of time, Gelardos has not filed a response. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It is the responsibility of the party seeking summary judgment to inform the court of the basis for the motion, and to identify the parts of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing affidavits or '"depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and 56(e) (1986)). In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court "must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." United States v. Carolina Transformer Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). However, a mere "'scintilla of evidence'" will not preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251 (quoting Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 442, 448 (1872)).

         In support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants rely upon the evidence they submitted in support of their previous Motion for Summary Judgment. That evidence includes: (1) an affidavit from Defendant Ray (Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1 ("Ray Aff."), ECF No. 15-1); (2) a copy of Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC") Operating Procedure § 720.1 (id End. A. ("Operating Procedure § 720.1")); (3) copies of grievances material submitted by Gelardos (id. Encl. B); and, ...


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.