United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Anthony D. Williams, #14113-112, Plaintiff,
Ms. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General; Mr. Travis Bragg, C.E.O. Warden; Ian Connor, National Inmate Appeal Coordinator; M. Holliday, Chief Dietitian; M. Furman, Associate Warden; P. Kelly, Associate Warden; Mr. Hicks, Institutional Captain; S.K. Brosier, Admini_Remedy Coordinator; Mr. Rich, CMC Coordinator; T. Whitehead, Unit Manager; J. Ackerman, Manager; Mrs. Roberts, Manager; Mrs. Bennett, Secretary; Ms. Prince, Correctional Officer; J. Onuoha; Mr. Padilla, Food Service Administrator; John/Jane Doe, Designation and Sentence Computation Unit Team; Ms. Murberry; United States of America; Mr. Cox; Mr. Parra; Mr. Davis, Unit Manager; and Mr. Rodriguez, Defendants.
V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
D. Williams (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, brings this action alleging a violation of
his constitutional rights while at FCI-Bennettsville. This
matter comes before the court on the following motions filed
by Plaintiff: (1) Motion for Immediate Assistance from the
Systemic Abuse of the United States Government
Agency/Employees [ECF No. 71]; (2) Motion for Permission to
File Default Motion and/or Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 72]; and (3) Motion for Default Judgment as to All
Defendants [ECF No. 78]. All pretrial proceedings in this
case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule
Motion related to injunctive relief [ECF No. 71]
motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff alleges Defendants
have failed to comply with his doctor's recommendation
regarding his diet and he complains that his account is being
charged for his three civil suits, court restitution for his
criminal case, and for sick calls, which leaves him unable to
purchase his own food. [ECF No. 71]. Defendants filed a
response [ECF No. 79, incorporating No. 76].
argue Plaintiff is not entitled to relief and cannot show a
likelihood of success on the merits of his claim that he
should receive a medical special diet. Defendants provide a
copy of Plaintiff's medical records, together with a
declaration of Dr. Stephen Hoey, the staff physician at
FCI-Williamsburg, and Plaintiff's treating physician.
[ECF No. 76-1]. Dr. Hoey testifies that Plaintiff was not
ordered to be on a medical special diet, as he claims.
Id. Dr. Hoey notes that Plaintiff's diet was
reviewed by a BOP dietician, who recommended that his snacks
be discontinued based upon an elevated hemoglobin A1c of 6.3,
obesity, and advised there was no clinical evidence of
malnutrition. Id. The on-site BOP physician reviewed
and agreed with this recommendation and issued the
appropriate order. Id. Dr. Hoey noted Plaintiff
voiced concerns about a bland diet and further noted that he
could self-select around the food selections offered by food
service to suit his tastes, specifically noting his
commissary record revealed that his purchases contradicted
his request for a bland diet in that he purchased hot and
spicy ramen, jalapeño salsa, and habanero cheese.
Hoey further noted that on May 17, 2017, the physician, nurse
practitioner, and health services administrator met with
Plaintiff for 25 minutes to address his complaints of
abdominal pain, his diet, lab work, and previous endoscopy.
Id. Dr. Hoey noted that Plaintiff did not appear to
be willing to follow any recommendations made by the
healthcare providers, was argumentative with staff throughout
the encounter, and refused any further examination.
court finds the undisputed medical records reveal that BOP
medical staff is treating Plaintiff for his medical condition
and that Plaintiff disagrees with the course of his medical
treatment. However, mere disagreement between an inmate and a
physician over the appropriate form of treatment is not an
actionable constitutional claim. Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985). Questions of medical
judgment are not subject to judicial review. Russell v.
Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318 (4th Cir. 1975). The Supreme Court
stated that the Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison
officials to provide inmates with “adequate food,
” not the food of their choosing. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 at 832 (1994).
evidence before the court demonstrates Plaintiff is being
offered a medically and nutritionally appropriate diet, and
he cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits.
Additionally, he has not shown or claimed, beyond conclusory
allegations, any likelihood of irreparable harm. As reflected
in his medical records, the diet that is being offered is
nutritionally appropriate to his medical condition, and he
has not offered any evidence, beyond his own unsupported
statements, to contradict that medical opinion. Similarly, he
has not made a showing that a balance of equities tips in his
favor. And finally, an injunction would not be in the public
interest. Questions of medical judgment are not subject to
judicial review, and courts are reluctant to second-guess the
propriety or adequacy of a particular course of treatment.
See Russell, 528 F.2d 318.
the court denies Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief
concerning his diet [ECF No. 71].
Motions for default judgment
filed a request for permission to file a motion for default
judgment and/or summary judgment on May 22, 2017 [ECF No.
72], and a motion for default judgment on May 30, 2017 [ECF
No. 78]. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment provides no
recitation of undisputed facts, but simply states that
Plaintiff wants to file for summary judgment. To the extent
Plaintiff intended his motion to be considered a motion for
summary judgment, the undersigned denies it because he has
failed to demonstrate that no genuine dispute of material
facts exists in this matter such that he is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. ...