Mark Reed-Bey v. George Pramstaller, 607 F. App'x 445

Background

In Sept. 2005 Reed‑Bey, an MDOC inmate, injured his shoulder; initial ER visit noted bone out of place and he received short‑term pain meds. Specialist referral did not occur until Dec. 1, 2005; surgery approval occurred only after March 2006.
Reed‑Bey sued MDOC, CMS (private contractor), BHCS, various administrators, nurses Nzums and Ingram, and Dr. Vadlamudi under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial/delay of medical care (Eighth Amendment).
The case experienced multiple interlocutory dismissals and remands (including vacaturs after Jones v. Bock and later appeals), multiple summary‑judgment motions, and a single‑defendant trial against Dr. Vadlamudi resulting in a jury verdict for Vadlamudi.
The district court denied Reed‑Bey’s motions for default against Nzums and Ingram due to lack of entry of default and service problems; those claims were later dismissed for failure to effect service under Rule 4(m).
The district court granted summary judgment for CMS, Pramstaller, Russell, and DuBuc on grounds that Reed‑Bey failed to show a CMS/MDOC policy or custom causing his injury and failed to show personal involvement by the supervisory defendants. The court allowed the Eighth Amendment claim against Vadlamudi to proceed to trial limited to alleged delays/pain management in Sept–Oct 2005.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial order improperly limited Reed‑Bey’s trial evidence (follow‑up care/surgery delay)	Reed‑Bey said he should be allowed to present evidence that Vadlamudi delayed post‑surgery follow‑up and further treatment	Court limited trial to Vadlamudi’s involvement in pain management in Sept–Oct 2005 because complaint lacked allegations tying her to post‑surgery delays	Affirmed — limitation proper; complaint did not allege Vadlamudi caused post‑surgery delays
Whether dismissal of Jackson and DuBuc without Reed‑Bey’s late objections violated his rights	Reed‑Bey argued he didn’t receive R&R and should have extension to object	Defendants pointed to proof of service showing R&R mailed to correct address; no good cause for extension	Affirmed — proof of service adequate; denial of extension not erroneous
Whether discovery denial forfeited claim that Reed‑Bey is third‑party beneficiary of CMS‑MDOC contract	Reed‑Bey said discovery would show contractual liability and third‑party‑beneficiary status	Defendants said issue not litigated below; discovery not required for undeveloped claim	Affirmed — claim raised first on appeal is forfeited; court won’t consider it
Whether default judgment against Nzums/Ingram was required after Marshal failed to serve	Reed‑Bey argued Marshals failed to effect service despite providing addresses	Defendants/district court noted no entry of default and that plaintiff did not help locate defendants after repeated unexecuted waivers	Affirmed — denial proper; Rule 55(a) entry of default absent and Rule 4(m) dismissal appropriate
Whether CMS, Pramstaller, Russell, DuBuc are entitled to summary judgment on § 1983 claims	Reed‑Bey argued corporate/supervisory liability based on contract, grievances, and alleged delays	Defendants argued no policy/custom shown for CMS; prison staff were MDOC employees; supervisors lacked personal involvement; grievance responses alone insufficient	Affirmed — no genuine dispute of material fact: no CMS policy/custom shown; no personal involvement by supervisors; grievance handling not basis for § 1983 liability

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (rules on exhaustion and pleading requirements in prisoner § 1983 suits)
Dargie v. United States, 742 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment statements)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment: drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
Street v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 102 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 1996) (corporate liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom, not respondeat superior)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (supervisory liability requires individual’s own conduct causing deprivation)
Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008) (denial of grievances alone does not create § 1983 supervisory liability)