United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Aaron E. Young, pro se, Plaintiff,
Management & Training Corp., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District Judge
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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.).
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.).
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).