United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
DESTINED C.M.D. GEORGE, Plaintiff,
DR. P. MOORE, ET AL., Defendants.
Destined C.M.D. George, Pro Se Plaintiff;
S. Simmons, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for
OPINION AND ORDER
P. Jones United States District Judge.
prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
plaintiff has submitted an Amended Complaint that the court
also construed and docketed as a motion seeking a preliminary
injunction regarding his alleged need for dental care at Red
Onion State Prison (“Red Onion”), ECF No. 13.
After review of the documentation provided by the Warden of
Red Onion, I find that this motion must be summarily denied.
alleges these facts in support of his request for
interlocutory relief. On April 8, 2019, he “was given a
filling in the wrong tooth, even after the defendants stated
they couldn't see any cavities on the X-Ray.” Mot.
Prelim. Inj. 1, ECF No. 13. The cavity George had allegedly
identified to the defendants remained untreated, and the new
filling caused him new, “excruciating pain.”
Id. He was provided with nutritional supplements and
pain medication to address his pain and his difficulty while
eating. Other fillings the defendants have given George also
allegedly “cause continuous pain.” Id.
He claims to have lost approximately 40 pounds.
filed the motion seeking interlocutory injunctive relief in
early November of 2019. The court directed Warden Kiser of
Red Onion to respond, and he has done so, submitting an
affidavit concerning his investigation of George's dental
care at the facility.
arrived at Red Onion in December of 2018. Warden Kiser is not
a dentist, but he reports that George has received treatment
as recommended by qualified dental professionals who have
assessed his current condition and complaints. Dental records
indicate that since April 8, 2019, George has been seen
approximately nine times for dental care. The facility's
dental staff have provided him with assessment, tooth
cleanings, fillings, and X rays, as they determined
appropriate for his condition.
recently, on November 26, 2019, George filed a grievance
complaining that during an October 28, 2019, dental
examination, he did not receive medicated fillings that Dr.
Moore had recommended. Based on an investigation of
George's dental records, the Level I response to his
grievance reported as follows:
On October 28, 2019, you were seen by Dental for a complaint
of pain on top and bottom left of mouth when chewing. You
reported no pain to sweets, hot, cold and no response when
tapping on the teeth. Your fillings are intact and you have
no broken teeth. Your bite was checked and you were evaluated
for grinding. Dr. Coleman placed you on medication and you
had an impression for a bite guard. Temporar[y] medicated
fillings are for teeth with large deep decay. Your teeth are
already filled and they are not deep. There is no reason to
drill out permanent fillings and put in temporary fillings.
Kiser Aff. Enclosure A, ECF No. 22-1.
preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, the
party seeking such relief must make a clear showing
“that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Each of these four factors
must be satisfied. Id.
deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical
need violates the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). A nurse practitioner or
other jail staff person is deliberately indifferent if he or
she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “This deliberate indifference
standard is not satisfied by a showing of mere negligence, a
mere error of judgment or inadvertent failure to provide
medical care, or mere disagreement concerning questions of
medical judgment.” Germain v. Shearin, 531
Fed.Appx. 392, 395 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (internal
quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted).
in his motion seeking interlocutory relief to obtain
different dental treatment, fails to state facts meeting the
four required elements in the Winter case. George
has been provided extensive dental care during his
confinement at Red Onion, as dental personnel have tried
various treatments to address his dental conditions and pain.
He believes that the care provided was not correct or was
insufficient to alleviate his symptoms. Such disagreements
between patient and professional as to the appropriate course
of treatment do not support a finding of deliberate
indifference. Accordingly, George's current allegations
do not show a likelihood that he will succeed on the merits
of his constitutional claim. Thus, George has not met ...