United States District Court, E.D. Virginia
MARINOS N. GELARDOS, Plaintiff,
CHARLES CAMPBELL, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
N. Gelardos, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. The Court construes Gelardos's
Complaint to assert the following claims:
Claim One: Defendant Campbell violated Gelardos's Eighth
Amendment 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 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. ¶¶
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.)
seeks damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
(Id. at 5-6.)
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.
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 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.
STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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)).
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,