United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani, United States District Judge.
Amos James Singleton ("Singleton"), an inmate who,
at all relevant times, was housed at the Benner Township
State Correctional Institution, in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania
("SCI-Benner Township"), initiated the instant
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The
remaining Defendants are Dr. Robert Beadle and dental
assistant Jessica Habovich. Singleton alleges that Defendants
violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him
with adequate dental care. (Id. at pp. 2, 5-7).
pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 filed on
behalf of Defendants Beadle and Habovich. (Doc. 56). For the
reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion for
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims
that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any
material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "As to
materiality, ... [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing
the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106
S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once such a showing has
been made, the non-moving party must offer specific facts
contradicting those averred by the movant to establish a
genuine issue of material fact. Lujan v. Nat'l
Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). Therefore,
the non-moving party may not oppose summary judgment simply
on the basis of the pleadings, or on conclusory statements
that a factual issue exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248. "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is
genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to
particular parts of materials in the record ... or showing
that the materials cited do not establish the absence or
presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A)-(B). In evaluating whether summary
judgment should be granted, "[t]he court need consider
only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials
in the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). "Inferences
should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, and where the non-moving party's evidence
contradicts the movant's, then the non-movant's must
be taken as true." Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N.
Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir.1992),
cert, denied507 U.S. 912 (1993).
"facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute
as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). If a
party has carried its burden under the summary judgment rule,
its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for
trial. The mere existence of some alleged factual dispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly
supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is
that there be no genuine issue of material fact. When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable
jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version
of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
Id. (internal quotations, citations, and alterations
Statement of Undisputed Facts
has never had dental care outside of a correctional setting.
(Doc. 58, Statement of Material Facts ("SMF"),
¶ 1). Singleton suffers from periodontal disease and
does not have all of his natural teeth. (Id. at
¶¶ 2-3). In the past, Singleton had teeth pulled,
he was always under anesthesia, and did not experience any
pain. (Id. at ¶ 4).
point between 1995 and 1997, during Singleton's
incarceration with the Department of Corrections
("DOC"), he was provided dentures with
approximately five to six teeth. (Id. at ¶ 5).
Since he received those dentures, Singleton lost five to six
teeth needed to support the dentures. (Id. at ¶
6). Singleton was told by DOC staff that he would receive new
dentures. (Id. at ¶ 7).
March 31, 2015, Singleton was scheduled to meet dental staff
in preparation for dentures and to have two teeth filled for
cavities. (Id. at ¶ 8). Singleton understood
that dental staff were not planning to pull any teeth that
day. (Id. at ¶ 9). During the visit, Dr. Beadle
and dental assistant Habovich told Singleton that he would
not receive new dentures because the DOC previously gave him
partial dentures approximately ten or twenty years ago.
(Id. at ¶ 10). After Dr. Beadle repaired the
cavities, Singleton stated that he just "went in
there" and pulled out a tooth. (Id. at ¶
11). Singleton felt "a sharp, tugging pain of the tooth
being extracted" and jumped out of the chair.
(Id. at ¶ 12). The tooth pulled was a healthy
tooth. (Id. at ¶ 13). Singleton did not see
what tool Dr. Beadle used to pull the tooth. (Id.
at¶ 14). Dr. Beadle and Habovich laughed, and Singleton
believes Habovich stated, "Oops. My bad."
(Id. at ¶ 15).
the tooth was an accident. (Id. at ¶ 16). At
his deposition, Singleton testified, "When they realized
that I was in pain from pulling the tooth and that I
wasn't scheduled to have a tooth pulled, it was more like
damn, we -- we made a mistake. Ha, ha, ha."
(Id. at ¶ 17). Singleton asked, "what...
the hell did you-all just do?" (Id. at ¶
18). Habovich responded, "pulled the tooth."
(Id. at ¶ 19). Dr. Beadle responded that the
tooth was loose anyway. (W. at¶ 20). Singleton then left
to file a grievance. (Id. at¶ 21).
dental assistant, Habovich handed Dr. Beadle the tools, put
the suction tool in Singleton's mouth, and did what Dr.
Beadle asked her to do. (Id. at ¶ 22).
has no doubt that Dr. Beadle was the only one involved in
pulling the tooth. (Id. at ¶ 23). Although
pulling the tooth was an accident, Singleton believes it was
still deliberate because Dr. Beadle should have known better.
(Id. at ¶ 24). Singleton was not given
anesthesia, he was not scheduled to have the tooth pulled,
and he had not complained about the tooth. (Id.).
Singleton did not request further dental treatment.
(Id. at ¶ 26).
2015, Singleton was placed on a mechanical soft diet because
he has no molars. (Id. at ¶ 25). He remains on
a mechanical soft diet today. (Id.).
past three to three and a half years, Singleton has suffered
from abscesses, bleeding and pain, and gargles with warm salt
water. (Id. at ¶ 27).
subsequently underwent throat surgery. (Id. at
¶ 28). During the surgery, the surgeon knocked out one
tooth and damaged another one. (Id.). Dental staff
at the institution extracted the damaged tooth.
(Id.). At that time, Singleton also started the
process to obtain new dentures, had imprints and impressions
made, and was going to receive new dentures by December 2018.
(Id. at ¶ 29).
seek an entry of judgment in their favor on the following
grounds: (1) the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to state
actors; (2) the Fourteenth Amendment claim is duplicative of
the Eighth Amendment claim; (3) Singleton failed to establish
an equal protection claim; (4) Defendant Habovich was not
personally involved in the alleged wrongs; (5) Singleton
failed to establish a conspiracy claim; (6) Defendants were
not deliberately indifferent to Singleton's serious