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.

Grove v. Rogers

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

April 24, 2019

Irvin Daniel Grove, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
Dr. Rogers, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          LIAM O'GRADY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Irvin Daniel Grove, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se ("Grove" or "plaintiff), has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he suffered deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in two respects at the Riverside Regional Jail ("RRJ"). The matter is presently before the Court on the unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Dr. Onan Bomar, IV, who is alleged to have violated plaintiffs Eighth Amendment rights in connection with a nasal fracture.[1] For the reasons which follow, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit in April, 2018, alleging that defendants at RRJ were deliberately indifferent to (1) a spinal condition and (2) a fractured nose. Dr. Bomar appears to have been named as a defendant solely in connection with the nasal fracture. In the amended complaint, which is the operative complaint in the lawsuit [Dkt. No. 3], Grove's allegations regarding the care he received from Dr. Bomar in full are as follow:

On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 I was assulted [sic] and my nose was badly broken. I was taken to Medical and examined by Doctor Bowmar. Dr. Bowmar instructed Charge Nurse Lemons [sic] to call for x-ray tech to see how bad it was broken. At 1:45 pm the same day x-rays were done and I was sent back to my housing unit and told I would be sent on an emergency run to get my nose set once the x-ray results confirmed my nose was broken.

[Dkt. No. 3 at 8] Grove alleges that :x>r the next several days his nose was disfigured and continued to cause him pain. He returned to the medical department and complained to Charge Nurse Lemmons and Ms. Hicks -van Haren that nothing was being done, and he was told that he would be seen by an "nose, ear and throat doctor" who might decide that it would not be best to re-break and set the nose. Id. at 9-11. Grove states that as of May 1,2018 his nose remained untreated because the RRJ medical staff was "incompetent" and "inadequate," and he would have to endure more pain to get his nose re-broken if he wanted to have a "somewhat straight" nose and to able to "breath[e] right" again. Id. at 11[2]He seeks an award of monetary damages for the injury alleged here.

         On November 13,2018, Dr. Bomar filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with a supporting memorandum of law and exhibits, and supplied Grove with the notice required by Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) and Local Civ. R. 7(J). [Dkt. No. 40-41] Grove has submitted no response. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition.

         II. Standard of Review

         Summary judgment shall be granted "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). The movant bears the initial burden of showing that there are no genuine, material factual disputes and that it is entitled to judgment based on those facts. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to point out the specific facts which create disputed issues. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986); Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate only where no material facts are genuinely disputed and the evidence as a whole could not lead a rational factfinder to rule for the non-moving party. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.

         Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(K)(2), if a pro se party receives the appropriate Roseboro notice and fails to file a response within the time allotted, the Court may dismiss the action on the basis of the moving party's papers.

         III. Undisputed Facts

         The following material facts are undisputed.

         1. Dr. Bomar is a physician licensed to practice medicine in Virginia, and is board certified in internal medicine. He has practiced as a physician at RRJ since March 18,2018. [Dkt. No. 41, Ex. 1, Bomar Aff. at ¶¶ 4-5]

         2. Dr. Bomar first saw Grove on March 22,2018, when he followed up on Grove's consultation with an orthopedic surgeon regarding his spinal condition. Pursuant to the surgeon's recommendation, Dr. Bomar placed an order for a ...


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.