Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-03-2022

Case Style:

Lonnie Olmetti v. Kent County

Case Number: 1:20-cv-395

Judge: Hala Y. Jarbou

Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Ohio (Kent County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:





Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Grand Rapids Personal Injury Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.


Defendant's Attorney: Chloe Cunningham and Kyle Patrick Konwinski

Description: Grand Rapids, Michigan personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants on civil rights violation theories under 42 U.S.C. 1983.


Plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee in the Kent County Correctional Facility (KCCF) when he fell from an upper bunk and suffered several injuries. During a prior incarceration, Sherwood assigned Plaintiff to a lower-bunk detail due to acute exacerbations of his pre-existing health issues. These exacerbations were not present when Plaintiff returned to KCCF, so the detail was removed shortly before the fall. After the fall, Plaintiff was rushed to the hospital for treatment. As a part of the treatment, the hospital staff prescribed Plaintiff various medical equipment.

Complying with the recommended prescriptions, Sherwood ordered that Plaintiff receive the equipment when he returned to KCCF from the hospital.

Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff brought numerous claims against Defendants, alleging violations of the Constitution and state law. At this point in the case, two claims remain against Sherwood: Plaintiff alleges that (1) both before and after Plaintiff's fall, Sherwood was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs by removing his lower-bunk detail and subsequently denying him medical treatment when he returned from the hospital in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) Sherwood's negligence caused Plaintiff's fall and corresponding injuries.

The R&R recommended granting Sherwood's motion for summary judgment, finding that Sherwood was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs, but recommended denying summary judgment on the negligence claim. In the alternative, the R&R recommended that the Court dismiss the remaining state-law negligence claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff advances nine objections to the R&R, while Sherwood objects to the denial of summary judgment on the negligence claim.

Outcome:
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's objections and deny Defendant Sherwood's partial objection. The Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sherwood on Plaintiff's negligence claim. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim. Consistent with this Opinion, the Court will enter an order dismissing Defendant Sherwood.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: