The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the court is defendants' April 18, 2012 motion for leave to file a supplemental summary judgment motion regarding plaintiff's claims against defendants Miller and Medina. For the following reasons, this motion is denied.
Defendants' First Summary Judgment Motion
On August 10, 2011, defendants filed a summary judgment motion purporting to address all of plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. No. 71.) On March 28, 2012, the undersigned recommended that defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part.
The grounds raised by defendants for summary judgment as to defendants Miller and Medina are summarized herein.
Regarding defendant Miller, defendants stated that plaintiff's claims arose from a 602 filed by plaintiff on January 6, 2008, complaining that he had not received his Gabapentin on January 1 and 6, 2008. (Dkt. No. 71-1 at 8.) Defendants stated that on February 26, 2008, defendant Miller interviewed plaintiff regarding the complaints in his 602. (Id.) Defendants stated that defendant Miller told plaintiff that she did not know who was not delivering his medications. (Id.) Defendants stated that defendant Miller told plaintiff that at the time of the interview, she supervised only Nurse Clark. (Id.) Defendants state that plaintiff told defendant Miller that he had no problems receiving his medications when Nurse Clark was on duty. (Id.) Defendant Miller also toldplaintiff that Z unit staff had been properly instructed regarding medication distribution. (Id.)
Defendants also stated that in August of 2008, defendant Miller took a leave of absence. (Id.) Defendants stated that when defendant Miller returned, she was no longer in charge of scheduling nurses to deliver medications. (Id.)
Defendant Miller moved for summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff was basing her liability on the theory of respondeat superior and that plaintiff had failed to link her to the alleged deprivations. As to plaintiff's claims regarding his failure to obtain his pain medicine in January 2008, defendants argued that defendant Miller was not responsible for delivering plaintiff his medications. (Id. at 14.) Defendants further argued that during defendant Miller's interview with plaintiff in February 2008, plaintiff admitted that he had been receiving his medication. (Id.) Plaintiff also told defendant Miller that he had no problems receiving his medication when Nurse Clark was on duty. (Id.)
Regarding plaintiff's allegations of failure to obtain his medication in November 2008, defendants argued that defendant Miller was not responsible for supervising any nursing staff at this time. (Id. at 15.)
Regarding defendant Medina, defendants stated that plaintiff alleged that on November 10, 2008, plaintiff was informed that defendant Medina stopped his Tramadol prescription. (Id. at 11.)
Defendants moved for summary judgment as to defendant Medina on grounds that it was defendant Medina's medical opinion that plaintiff did not require both Tramadol and Gabapentin. (Id.) Defendants argued that defendant Medina's failure to provide plaintiff with Tramadol for only a few days did not constitute deliberate indifference. (Id. at 18.)
Defendants requested that the court exercise its discretion and dismiss plaintiff's state law claims made against all defendants, assuming that they were granted summary judgment as ...