Summary
discussing cases finding that inmates have no constitutional right to privacy in their medical records
Summary of this case from Bailey v. County of KittsonOpinion
Civil No. 05-5162.
March 6, 2007
ORDER
NOW on this 6th day of March 2007, the above referenced matter comes on for consideration and the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows:
1. This matter was originally initiated by the plaintiff on September 19, 2005.
On March 13, 2006, the defendants, Sheriff Keith Ferguson and Dr. Neil Mullins, filed their Motion for Summary Judgment (document #20).
To assist plaintiff in responding to the summary judgment motion, a questionnaire was propounded to the plaintiff (document #23). His response to the questionnaire was filed as his response to the summary judgment motion (document #24).
2. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #26 — the "R R") addressed the summary judgment motion and was filed on February 8, 2007. It provided that "parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)."
3. On February 27, 2007, plaintiff filed his Written Objections to the R R as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) (document #27). Plaintiff also then filed a Motion for Extension of Time (document #28).
In the motion for extension of time, plaintiff seeks an additional thirty (30) days within which to file objections to the R R "containing medical documents that are not currently available." The motion notes that plaintiff has never before requested an extension of time and also notes that the needed documents "are at other facilities and agencies which he will try to obtain through `The Freedom of Information Act' and/or hopefully other available means such as `Appointment of Counsel' etc."
4. To provide context for the Court's analysis, it is useful to note that plaintiff contends his constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at the Benton County Detention Center because, he says:
* that he was denied adequate medical care;
* that his right to medical privacy was violated; and
* that the grievance procedure at the jail was inadequate.
In the R R, Judge Marschewski analyzed the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to all of these claims and recommended:
* that the motion be denied with respect to plaintiff's claim that he was denied adequate medical care;
* that the motion be granted with respect to plaintiff's claim that his right to medical privacy was violated; and,
* that the motion be granted with respect to his claim that the grievance procedure was inadequate.
As already noted, plaintiff filed written objections to the R R (document #27) and has also moved for an extension of time to present "objections containing medical documents that are not currently available. (medications, x-rays, etc.)" (document #28).
In the written objections presented by plaintiff, he objects to the recommendation that the summary judgment motion be granted with respect to any claims — but agrees that it should be denied with respect to his claim that he was denied adequate medical care. That being plaintiff's position — and since the Court will, in fact, adopt Judge Marschewski's recommendation and deny the motion as to the medical care issue — the Court perceives no reason to delay a final ruling on this motion in order to allow plaintiff to present further medical evidence. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (document #28) will be denied.
5. As to plaintiff's other objections (document #27), the Court finds that they offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the same should be adopted in toto.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time (document #28) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #26) is adopted in toto, and, in accordance therewith, the Court finds that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (document #20) should be, and it hereby is, granted in part and denied in part as follows:
* the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect to plaintiff's claim that his privacy, or confidentiality, with respect to his medical information was violated; and that claim is hereby dismissed, with prejudice;
* the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect to plaintiff's claim that the grievance procedure was inadequate; and that claim is hereby dismissed, with prejudice;
* the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied with respect to plaintiff's claim that he was denied adequate medical care.
IT IS SO ORDERED.