Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. Management & Training Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division

January 7, 2020

Aaron E. Young, pro se, Plaintiff,
Management & Training Corp., et al., Defendants.


          Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

         Defendants Management & Training Corporation (“MTC”), MTC Medical LLC, Neil Turner, Becky Joyce, Ruben Quintero, Vicky Donahue, Lori Shuler, James Craig, Benjamin Blankenship, and Kea Smith have filed a motion for summary judgment as to the claims asserted against them by pro se Plaintiff Aaron E. Young. (Doc. No. 23). Young filed a brief in opposition to Defendants' motion, as well as a supplemental brief in opposition. (Doc. No. 29; Doc. No. 31). Defendants filed a brief in reply. (Doc. No. 33).

         Young also filed three motions to strike some or all of the affidavits of Shuler and Donahue. (Doc. No. 28; Doc. No. 34; Doc. No. 41). Defendants oppose each of those motions and filed a motion to strike of their own. (Doc. No. 44). Finally, Young also filed a motion for leave to file a declaration in support of his opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 38).

         For the reasons stated below, I grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment, deny Young's motions to strike and his motion for leave, and deny Defendants' motion to strike.

         II. Background

         On October 24, 2016, staff at the North Central Correctional Complex in Marion, Ohio, conducted an annual screening for tuberculosis. Medical and security staff members gathered inmates in the dayrooms of the housing units at the facility, where staff members had set up folding tables. In Young's unit, inmates were ordered to stand in a line approximately ten feet away from the three screening tables. (Doc. No. 30 at 1-2). The parties disagree on the distance between these tables. Young asserts the tables were only four feet apart, (id. at 2), while Defendants contend the tables were set up on different sides of the room. (Doc. No. 23-1 at 2).

         According to Young, the inmates waiting in line could overhear the conversations between the medical staff members and the inmates at the tables. Young contends Defendants conducted the tuberculosis testing in a way which led to his sensitive medical information - his prior tuberculosis diagnosis - being disclosed to other inmates. (Doc. No. 30 at 2). Defendants dispute Young's characterization of the testing, asserting the tables were placed far enough away from each other and from the line of inmates so that the conversations could not be overheard “if held at normal volumes.” (Doc. No. 23-1 at 3).

         Before taking his turn at the screening table, Young complained about the table set-up in the room to Blankenship, indicating he could overhear the conversations of other inmates and that he did not want to speak to the nurses at the tables because he did not want other inmates to overhear his disclosure of his medical information. (Doc. No. 30 at 2). Young asserts Blankenship told him he would be placed in segregation if he did not participate in the screening. (Id.).

         Young claims Defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by disclosing his medical information and held a meeting in September 2016 for the purpose of ordering that tuberculosis testing be done in a manner in which it was foreseeable that Young' sensitive medical information would be disclosed to other inmates. (Doc. No. 1 at 3-4). He claims Turner, Shuler, Quintero, Craig, and Donahue ordered Blankenship, Smith, and six unknown defendants to violate Young's Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 5). He also alleges MTC and MTC Medical LLC had an unconstitutional custom and policy of requiring inmates to disclose sensitive medical information within earshot of other inmates, had an unconstitutional custom and policy of inadequately training and supervising employees concerning the disclosure of medical information, and acted negligently in training employees and in the manner in which Defendants conducted the tuberculosis screening. (Id.).

         III. Standard

         Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant demonstrates there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 390 (6th Cir. 2008), and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the nonmovant's favor. Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 766 F.3d 532, 535 (6th Cir. 2014). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could resolve the dispute and return a verdict in the nonmovant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A disputed fact is material only if its resolution might affect the outcome of the case under the governing substantive law. Rogers v. O'Donnell, 737 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 2013).

         IV. Analysis

         A. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.