Wilhelmina Marie Wright

Wright enforces statutory procedural prerequisites against the party invoking them, even sua sponte and even to reject an unobjected magistrate recommendation. In Martinez she would not let defendants use Minn. Stat. 145.682's mandatory-dismissal penalty without first making the statute's required 60-day demand for the expert-review affidavit -- the demand is what starts the plaintiff's clock. A defendant seeking 145.682 dismissal should be able to point to its own prior express or implied demand (pleadings, interrogatories, or motion papers can suffice), not skip straight to dismissal.

“Because Defendants have not made the prerequisite demand for an affidavit of expert review, Martinez's 60-day period to provide an affidavit of expert review has not begun. Accordingly, dismissal based on a failure to comply with Minnesota Statutes Section 145.682 is not warranted.”

On a deliberate-indifference claim at summary judgment, Wright demands evidence of the defendant's subjective knowledge of and deliberate disregard for an objectively serious medical need; a delay in care, resulting pain, or a patient's disagreement with treatment decisions is not enough. She assumed the serious-medical-need element arguendo and still granted SJ because the record showed the nurse's treatment conformed to her duty of care and jail procedures. A plaintiff opposing SJ must raise a genuine fact dispute on the defendant's state of mind, not merely on bad outcomes.

“even when viewed in the light most favorable to Dutton, his allegations are legally insufficient to avoid summary judgment. The record reflects that Nurse Martinson's treatment of Dutton was consistent with her duty of care and with St. Louis County Jail's procedures. ... without more, neither a healthcare provider's negligence, nor a patient's disagreement with treatment decisions rises to a constitutional violation.”