The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joyner, Judge.
This is a prisoner civil rights case brought by Plaintiff Wayne Thomas
("Plaintiff"), a prisoner currently incarcerated at the State
Correctional Institution at Graterford ("SCI-Graterford"), against
several prison and medical officials, including William Zinkel
("Zinkel"), School Principal at SCI-Graterford; David DiGuglielmo
("DiGuglielmo"), Deputy Superintendent for Facility Management at
SCI-Graterford; Terrance Swartz ("Swartz"), Maintenance Supervisor at
SCI-Graterford; Correctional Physicians Services, Inc. ("CPS"); Frank
Botto ("Botto"), CPS's Administrator; Dr. Emre Beken ("Beken"); Dr.
Baddick ("Baddick"), Medical Director at SCI-Graterford; and Julie Knauer
("Knauer"), Correctional Health Care Administrator (collectively
"Defendants"). In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that various
Defendants violated his federally protected civil rights under the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and
42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff alleges several state common
Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend; (2)
Zinkel, DiGuglielmo, Vaughn, Swartz, and Knauer's ("Prison Defendants")
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); and (3) CPS, Beken,
and Botto's ("Medical Defendants") Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) and/or for Summary Judgment. For the reasons that follow we will
grant all of the Motions before the Court.
In August 1998, Plaintiff was assigned to the "school area" within
SCI-Graterford to work as a typewriting clerk. The typewriting area where
Plaintiff worked had a roof leak that allowed rain water to enter the
room. Plaintiff was directed by Zinkel to clean the area and to attempt
to divert the leaking water. On May 18, 1999, while attempting to repair
the leak, Plaintiff slipped and fell from the ledge he was standing on
and suffered several injuries to his lower back region.
Immediately after his fall, Plaintiff was taken to the prison hospital
and received medical treatment from the Physician's Assistant on duty. In
the months that followed, Plaintiff received a variety of tests,
prescriptions, and ongoing diagnoses from several different physicians.
Despite this continuing treatment, Plaintiff's injuries from the fall
persisted, and he became increasingly unsatisfied with his doctors'
refusal to order certain tests and their care in general. Following his
injury, Plaintiff filed a variety of informal and formal prison
grievances complaining about the unsafe conditions that led to his fall
and the shortcomings of the medical care he received. Plaintiff filed the
instant Complaint in this Court on December 20, 2000.
In the midst of Defendants' dispositive motions, Plaintiff has filed a
Motion to Amend. Plaintiff's Motion seeks to amend the Complaint to
reflect that Plaintiff's claims against DiGuglielmo are brought against
him in his individual capacity. Because Defendants indicate no opposition
to this Motion, and because courts freely grant leave to amend, we will
grant Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a).
When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must view all facts, and
inferences drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the
non-movant. See, e.g., Markowitz v. Northeast Land Co., 906 F.2d 100, 103
(3d Cir. 1990). Dismissal is appropriate only "if it is clear that no
relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved
consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69,
73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984).
In contrast, when deciding a motion for summary judgment under Rule
56(c), a court must determine "whether there is a genuine issue of
material fact and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to
judgment as matter of law." Medical Protective Co. v. Watkins,
198 F.3d 100, 103 (3d Cir. 1999). Although a court should view all facts
in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the non-movant must,
through affidavits, admissions, depositions, or other evidence
demonstrate that a genuine issue exists for trial. See Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the
non-movant fails to create "sufficient disagreement to require ...