United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
F. Delaney, a former inmate at Virginia Beach Correctional
Center (VBCC), has brought a pro se civil rights action
against Dr. Abdul Jamaludeen, alleging violations of his
constitutional rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
Virginia tort law. Dr. Jamaludeen has filed a second motion
for summary judgment, supported by a legal memorandum and
exhibits.[Dkt. Nos. 73-74]. Delaney received the
notice required by Local Rule 7(K) and Roseboro v.
Garrison. 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), and filed a
response in opposition. [Dkt. Nos. 75, 87]. Delaney also has
moved for appointment of counsel and immediate injunctive
relief. [Dkt. Nos. 78-79, 83]. For the reasons that follow,
Jamaludeen's second motion for summary judgment will be
granted and Delaney's motions for appointment of counsel
and injunctive relief will be denied.
following facts, with disputes noted, relate to Delaney's
medical treatment while confined at VBCC, and are viewed in
the light most favorable to Delaney as the nonmoving party.
See Bennett v. Garner. 913 F.3d 436, 438 (4th Cir.
arrived at VBCC on March 10, 2016, with preexisting
gastrointestinal conditions: ulcerative colitis (treated with
a total colectomy and "J-pouch") and Crohn's
disease. [PI. Verified Compl. ¶¶ 20-21, 23; Stolle
Ex. B, at ¶ 1]. During his medical intake, he reported
his digestive conditions and a need for a low-residue diet.
[PI. Verified Compl. ¶ 23; Stolle Ex. B, at ¶ 15
8]. Dr. Jamaludeen declares that a low-residue diet was
ordered for Delaney at that time. [Jamaludeen Decl. ¶
5]. However, Delaney's medical records show that this
diet was not ordered until May 2 (save for a single day in
March) and lasted through October 14. [Jamaludeen Ex. D]. The
records show, instead, that Delaney initially was assigned a
regular diet with supplemental shakes. [Id.]
Jamaludeen had previously assigned that diet to Delaney
during a short stint at VBCC earlier that year because, he
explained, "Delaney denied being able to eat nearly all
forms of nutrition available," so he "ordered a
regular diet which contained low-residue items that he could
select on the tray," supplemented by nutritional shakes.
[Jamaludeen Decl. ¶ 5]. Jamaludeen further avers that
even when the low-residue diet was prescribed, Delaney would
purchase noncompliant food items from the canteen, such as
Nesquik chocolate milk, hot wings, fried chicken, and fries.
[Id ¶¶ 6-7; Stolle Ex. D, at Canteen 10].
submitted sick-call requests and grievances in March and
April 2016 reporting that he had not been given an
appropriate diet and, as a result, was experiencing rectal
swelling and severe pain. [Pl. Verified Compl. ¶¶
24-27; PI. Ex. B-D]. He requested a low-residue diet and HC
suppositories to treat his pain. [Pl. Verified Compl.
¶¶ 24-25; PI. Ex. B-C]. The requested suppositories
were provided by June 7, but Delaney contends that a
low-residue diet continued to be withheld. [Pl. Verified
Compl. ¶¶ 26, 33, 41; Pl. Ex. M-O]. Grievance
responses dated August 24 and September 12, 2016, however,
explain that a low-residue diet had been prescribed for
Delaney, and if his actual meals were incorrect, Naphcare,
VBCC's medical contractor, is a separate contractor from
the food-services contractor and, thus, not responsible. [Pl.
was admitted to the hospital on June 24, 2016, to be treated
for a small bowel obstruction. [Stolle Ex. B, at ¶ 14,
MR19]. He was discharged on July 11 with instructions to
maintain a low-residue diet with supplemental shakes. [Pl.
Ex. L-2]. In particular, Delaney was instructed that he could
eat eggs, chicken, fish, noodles, bread, and mashed potatoes,
but not to eat processed food, fruit, vegetables, beans,
peanut butter, cheese, nuts, and seeds. [Id.]. When
he returned to VBCC, he continued to complain that he was not
receiving meals that complied with his low-residue diet. [Pl.
Ex. G & G-1].
follow-up colonoscopy performed on September 16, 2016,
revealed no sign of obstruction or "active"
inflammatory bowel disease. [Stolle Ex. B, at ¶ 1, MR6].
Afterwards, Dr. Jamaludeen switched Delaney's diet from
low residue to renal, which the doctor describes as a
"low-waste diet with high quality proteins."
[Jamaludeen Decl. ¶¶ 11-12]. With this new diet,
Delaney contends, he experienced the "same
complications" he suffered before his hospitalization,
including severe pain and discomfort when attempting a bowel
movement. [PL Verified Compl. ¶¶ 45, 51]. According
to Delaney, this prompted him to give away his meals, forcing
himself to eat only when he would "eventually get
hungry." [Id. ¶ 51]. Correctional officers
notified Jamaludeen that Delaney had been giving away his
renal-diet meals and also selling his nutritional shakes. [PL
Verified Compl. ¶ 49; Jamaludeen Decl. ¶¶ 6,
14]. When Jamaludeen learned about this, he discontinued both
on May 9, 2017, although the doctor reinstated the diet
(without supplemental shakes) two weeks later on May 19,
2017. [Jamaludeen Decl. ¶¶ 6, 14; Jamaludeen Ex.
D], Jamaludeen avers that, from that point on, he monitored
Delaney for malnutrition and identified no weight or muscle
loss. [Jamaludeen Decl. ¶ 14.]. Delaney contends,
however, that he lost 15 pounds between May 10 and June 1.
[PL Verified Compl. ¶ 51].
filed suit on July 6, 2017, claiming that Dr. Jamaludeen
acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs while he was incarcerated at VBCC. [Dkt. No. 1].
(Delaney left VBCC on April 16, 2019. [Dkt. No. 83]).
Standard of Review
Court will grant a motion for summary judgment "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). "A dispute is
genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party," and "[a] fact is material if it
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law." Hupp v. Cook, 931 F.3d 307, 317 (4th Cir.
2019) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
contends that Dr. Jamaludeen acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical need because the doctor
knew about his gastrointestinal conditions yet withheld a
medically necessary diet and pain-relief suppositories.
"It is beyond debate that a prison official's
deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical
needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the
Eighth Amendment." Gordon v. Schilling, 937
F.3d 348, 356 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). To demonstrate deliberate indifference, an
inmate must show that (1) he has a medical condition that has
been "diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or
is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize
the necessity for a doctor's attention" and (2) the
defendant "had actual knowledge of the plaintiffs
serious medical needs and the related risks, but nevertheless
disregarded them." Id. at 356-57 (internal
quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted). The first
component is an objective inquiry and the second is
subjective. Heyer v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons. 849
F.3d 202, 209-10 (4th Cir. 2017).
Jamaludeen argues that the undisputed facts demonstrate that
he did not act with deliberate indifference to Delaney's
medical conditions. Focusing on the subjective component of
the deliberate-indifference standard, he argues that he
appropriately managed Delaney's conditions. He asserts
that he continuously treated Delaney, making adjustments to
his treatment plan as needed. Delaney's disagreement with
his medical judgment, he adds, is insufficient to impose
undisputed record before the Court does not establish that
Dr. Jamaludeen was deliberately indifferent to Delaney's
gastrointestinal conditions. First, the evidence shows that
Delaney was prescribed various diets throughout his stay
based on Dr. Jamaludeen's professional judgment.
Jamaludeen initially ordered a regular diet with supplemental
nutrition shakes, switched the diet to low residue within a
couple months, and, then, after receiving the colonoscopy
report, changed his diet to a renal diet. Although Delaney
would have preferred a low-residue diet ordered upon intake
and continued throughout his incarceration, his personal
opinion cannot "override the reasonable professional
judgment of the prison's medical team." See
United States v. Clawson. 650 F.3d 530, 538 (4th Cir.
2011). To the extent that ...