Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Miller v. County of Nassau

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 31, 2018

MCKINLEY MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF NASSAU and ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH INC., Defendants.

          For Plaintiff: McKinley Miller, pro se

          For Defendants: John J. Doody, Esq. Dale Nicholson McLaren, Esq. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.

         Plaintiff McKinley Miller (“Plaintiff”) commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) against the County of Nassau (the “County”) and Armor Correctional Health Inc. (“Armor” and collectively “Defendants”) on October 13, 2016. (Compl., Docket Entry 1.) Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Defs.' Mot., Docket Entry 23.) For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

         BACKGROUND

         I. Factual Background[1]

         On April 8, 2016, Plaintiff arrived at the Nassau County Correctional Center (“NCCC”). (Compl. ¶ IV.) At that time, he required a back brace and a cane to walk due to a recent spinal fusion surgery. (Compl. ¶ IV.) For the next five months, he was housed in the satellite section of NCCC and denied the use of his back brace and his cane. (Compl. ¶ IV.) Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff with the medications from a list forwarded by his doctor. (Compl. ¶ IV.) During June and September 2016, while he was still in the satellite section, he fell and re-injured his back and knees because he was not allowed to use a back brace or cane. (Compl. ¶ IV.A.) On September 8, 2016, after the second fall, he was moved to the medical ward of NCCC. (Compl. ¶ IV.)

         Additionally, at some point, Defendants denied an authorization for an MRI and failed to prescribe additional medication. (Compl. ¶ IV.) Plaintiff did receive physical therapy but was advised that physical therapy would not improve his condition and that he may need to have additional surgery. (Compl. ¶ IV.)

         II. Procedural History

         As discussed, Plaintiff commenced this action on October 13, 2016. Because his claims relate to medical care, the Court construes the Complaint as asserting a Section 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] Plaintiff seeks “in excess of $2, 000, 000” in damages. (Compl. ¶ V.)

         Defendants filed their motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 10, 2017. (See Defs.' Mot.) Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff several extensions of time to file an opposition to the motion; however, no opposition was filed. (See Sept. 8, 2017 Electronic Order; Sept. 19, 2017 Electronic Order; Oct. 24, 2017 Electronic Order.)

         DISCUSSION

         Defendants argue that the Complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) (Defs.' Br., Docket Entry 23-4, at 8-10); (2) Plaintiff failed to allege that any individual employee was directly involved in the constitutional violation (Defs.' Br. at 13-14); (3) Plaintiff failed to allege that the constitutional violation was the result of a policy or custom promulgated by Defendants (Defs.' Br. at 14-15); and (4) Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs (Defs.' Br. at 16-19).

         I. Le ...


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.