Graham v. Hurst
5:13-ct-03109
E.D.N.C.Feb 17, 2015Background
- Plaintiff, a North Carolina inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate dental care for an infected partially impacted lower right wisdom tooth (pericoronitis).
- Dental records show dentist Hurst examined Plaintiff (May 2010), identified pericoronitis but no active decay, performed debridement, and recommended non‑surgical treatment attempts before extraction per DPS guidelines.
- Dental hygienist Hill performed scaling/polishing (June 28, 2010); Plaintiff missed a follow‑up appointment on October 28, 2010 and requested no further treatment.
- Defendant Forrest was served but died shortly after service; no substitution motion was filed within 90 days.
- Defendant Hill was properly served and answered within the Rule 12 deadline; Plaintiff moved for default judgment, which was denied.
- Plaintiff failed to respond to summary judgment motions; court warned under Roseboro that failure to respond could result in summary judgment or dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against deceased Defendant Forrest should proceed | Forrest was a defendant served; claims should continue | No substitution motion filed within 90 days of notice of death; Rule 25 requires substitution | Claims against Forrest dismissed without prejudice for failure to substitute |
| Whether default judgment against Hill is warranted | Hill failed to timely respond to complaint, entitling Plaintiff to default | Hill was served May 23, 2014 and answered within 21 days | Default denied; Hill timely answered |
| Whether Plaintiff’s action should be dismissed for failure to prosecute (no response to summary judgment) | Plaintiff did not respond (no counterargument) | Defendants moved for summary judgment and warned Plaintiff; nonresponse permits dismissal | Claims against Hurst and Hill dismissed for failure to prosecute (court also reached merits) |
| Whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need (Eighth Amendment) | Plaintiff alleges delay/refusal to extract tooth amounted to deliberate indifference | Defendants provided examinations, non‑surgical treatment per guidelines, and monitoring was frustrated by Plaintiff’s missed appointment; mere disagreement with treatment is insufficient | Summary judgment for Defendants: no deliberate indifference; medical judgment and non‑surgical treatment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.) (notice to pro se litigant about consequences of failing to respond to dispositive motions)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and evidentiary materials)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (medical care and deliberate indifference standard under the Eighth Amendment)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (court’s authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir.) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge and disregard of serious medical need)
- Cray Commc’ns, Inc. v. Novatel Computer Sys., 33 F.3d 390 (evidentiary standards on summary judgment)
- Orsi v. Kickwood, 999 F.2d 86 (summary judgment and the nonmoving party’s obligations)