United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [RESOLVING ECF NOS.
Y. PEARSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are Plaintiff Charles Leonard Galloway's
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 62, supplemented at ECF
No. 78) and Defendant the United States of
America's (the “United States” or
the “Government”) motion to dismiss and for
summary judgment (ECF No. 80). The Government filed a
response in opposition (ECF No. 82) to Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment, and Plaintiff did not file a reply.
Plaintiff also did not file a response in opposition to the
Government's motion. Insofar as Plaintiff's other
filings reflect an argument in opposition to dismissal or
summary judgment, however, the Court liberally construes the
content of those filings. Plaintiff has submitted no evidence
in support of his motion, nor in opposition to the
reasons stated herein, summary judgment is granted in favor
of the United States as to both remaining claims. Any claim
of negligence or medical malpractice arising from
Plaintiff's June 2014 seizure is dismissed.
advances two distinct claims against the United States, both
arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(“FTCA”). The first sounds in medical
malpractice, and the second sounds in ordinary negligence.
has been in federal custody since 2011 and is scheduled to be
released in 2028. ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 350; see BOP
Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/mobile/ find inmate/. He
arrived at the Federal Correctional Institution in Elkton,
Ohio (“FCI Elkton”), in 2012, and he was
transferred to FCI Schuylkill in Pennsylvania in November
2018. ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 363, 366.
September 2013, while housed at FCI Elkton, Plaintiff
presented to sick call complaining that his “tongue
didn't work.” No. 4:16-CV-572-BYP (N.D. Ohio, filed
Mar. 9, 2016), ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 4; No. 4:17-CV-1314-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, filed Jun3 22, 2017), ECF No. 62-2 at PageID#:
262. He was turned away, however, when the physician insisted
Plaintiff was “faking it.” No. 4:16-CV-572, ECF
No. 1 at PageID#: 4; No. 4:17-CV-1314, ECF No. 62-2 at
PageID#: 262. The nurse, perceiving that Plaintiff was
behaving in a threatening manner, called an emergency, and
Plaintiff was placed in the Special Housing Unit for several
days. No. 4:16-CV-572, ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 4; No.
4:17-CV-1314, ECF No. 62-2 at PageID#: 262. While there, on
September 18, 2013, he suffered a stroke. Id. at
PageID#: 367. Plaintiff was transported in an ambulance to an
outside medical facility and eventually to St.
Elizabeth's Hospital in Youngstown, Ohio, where an
evaluation revealed that surgery was not necessary. No.
4:16-CV-572, ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 4; No. 4:17-CV-1314, ECF
No. 78 at PageID#: 323; ECF No. 80-4 at PageID#: 504. He was
later transported to another facility for rehabilitation. ECF
No. 80-4 at PageID#: 504.
the course of the following years, Plaintiff was treated for
complications resulting from his stroke, including
“residual seizure disorder[, ] aphasia[, ] abnormal
gait[, ] and movement disorder.” See ECF No. 80-3 at
PageID#: 470-503; ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 391-404.
Specifically, he was prescribed a twice-daily dosage of
anti-seizure medicine (“Keppra”) and was
counseled that his safety, including adherence to that
prescription, was “paramount.” See ECF No. 80-3
at PageID#: 475; ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 398 (“two
times a day”). Despite those complications,
Plaintiff's “comprehension . . . remains intact,
” ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 467, and he routinely
presents as “alert and oriented, ” ECF No. 80-3
at PageID#: 473, 477, 498, 500. Plaintiff acknowledges that
he falls down often. ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 366-68.
6, 2014, Plaintiff suffered a seizure. Although Plaintiff
suggests he “couldn't have missed [a dose]”
of his anti-seizure medication, medical records reflect that
his seizure occurred because Plaintiff “[m]issed 10
doses of Keppra.” ECF No. 80-3 at PageID#: 472.
Plaintiff was immediately sent to St. Elizabeth's
Hospital to be checked, id., and he reports no complications
or injuries arising from the June 2014 seizure.
November 3, 2016, while walking through the dish line at the
chow hall, Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor. No.
4:17-CV-1314, ECF No. 1 at PageID#: 3; see ECF No. 80-3 at
PageID#: 496-501. He says an inmate who worked as a
dishwasher was spraying water indiscriminately on the counter
and on the floor. ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 363-64, 383-84.
Plaintiff does not know whether wet floor signs were placed
in the chow hall at the time, id. at PageID#: 388, but he
acknowledges that the chow hall was well lighted and that he
was familiar with the area around the dish line. Id.
at PageID#: 378-79, 363-64.
was taken immediately to Health Services, and from there he
was transported to a local hospital for a precautionary CT
scan. Id. at PageID#: 386-88; see ECF No. 80-5 at
PageID#: 531. The CT scan was returned negative for any brain
injuries. ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 386-88; see ECF No. 80-5
at PageID#: 531. Back at FCI Elkton, Plaintiff was examined,
given acetaminophin (“Tylenol”) for pain, and
sent on his way. See ECF No. 80-2 at PageID#: 421-30; ECF No.
80-3 at PageID#: 495-501. Several follow-up visits revealed
some pain in his back but no lasting injuries. ECF No. 80-3
at PageID#: 490-95.
judgment is appropriately granted when the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any
affidavits show “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); see also
Johnson v. Karnes, 398 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2005).
The moving party is not required to file affidavits or other
similar materials negating a claim on which its opponent
bears the burden of proof, so long as the movant relies upon
the absence of the essential element in the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986). The moving party must “show that the non-moving
party has failed to establish an essential element of his
case upon which he would bear the ultimate burden of proof at
trial.” Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trustees,
980 F.2d 399, 403 (6th Cir. 1992).
the movant makes a properly supported motion, the burden
shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate the existence
of a genuine dispute. An opposing party may not simply rely
on its pleadings; rather, it must “produce evidence
that results in a conflict of material fact to be resolved by
a jury.” Cox. v. Ky. Dep't of Transp., 53
F.3d 146, 150 (6th Cir. 1995). To defeat the motion, the
non-moving party must “show that there is doubt as to
the material facts and that the record, taken as a whole,
does not lead to a judgment for the movant.”
Guarino, 980 F.2d at 403. In reviewing a motion for
summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party when ...