Sloan v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 021020 FED3, 19-1085
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||JOHN SLOAN, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MERCER SCI; SUPERINTENDENT THOMPSON; CAPT. SULLENBERGER; MR. BOGGS, Maint. Mgr; MR. BROMLEY, Facility Safety Manager; MR. DELLORSO, Maintenance #24; MS. BOAL, Medical Dept. Supervisor; MR. WOODS, OSCS; MS. ENGSTROM, Inmate Capt. Spc.; CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, (CCS); MR. RICHARD ELL...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and COWEN, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||February 10, 2020|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 7, 2020
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01182) District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer
Before: KRAUSE, MATEY and COWEN, Circuit Judges
John Sloan, a Pennsylvania prisoner who is proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment. We will affirm.
Sloan sustained a fractured toe while on a work assignment as part of SCI-Mercer's maintenance crew. He later filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which he later amended, alleging, inter alia, that he was not adequately treated for the toe injury, that the working conditions in the prison were dangerous, and that he was fired from his position in the prison's maintenance department in retaliation for initiating a civil suit in state court. He named as defendants the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, SCI-Mercer, and several SCI-Mercer employees ("DOC defendants"). He also named Correct Care Solutions, a healthcare company that provides medical services to inmates, and three of its employees, Richard Ellers, Karen Feathers, and Dr. Morgan ("medical defendants").
The medical defendants and the DOC defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment.1 The medical defendants asserted that they provided Sloan with appropriate treatment; the DOC defendants argued that Sloan failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that his claims lacked merit. A Magistrate Judge recommended granting both motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the summary judgment record failed to support Sloan's claims against the medical defendants, and recommended that the District Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over any state law claims. In a separate Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge stated that Sloan had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his claims against the DOC defendants. The District Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions and granted both motions for summary judgment. Sloan timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's order granting summary judgment. See DeHart v. Horn, 390 F.3d 262, 267 (3d Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all inferences in favor of that party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 422-23 (3d Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. See Fairview Twp. v. EPA, 773 F.2d 517, 525 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985).
To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim for the denial or delay of medical care, Sloan is required to demonstrate that the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP