# JOHNSON v. MONTAG

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · July 21, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11104668

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 21, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11104668

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARCUS R. JOHNSON, )
Plaintiff, .
VS. Case No. 1:22-cv-186
DR. MONTAG, SCI FOREST'S DENTIST,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This pro se civil rights action was commenced pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 by Plaintiff
Marcus R. Johnson, an inmate at SCI-Forest. At this juncture, Plaintiffs only remaining cause
of action is his Eighth Amendment claim alleging that Dr. Montag displayed deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs by delaying a root canal procedure over the course of
several months in 2020, .a time period that coincided with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Defendant Montag has filed a motion for summary judgment on this claim which remains
pending before the Court.. ECF-No. 57. It is undisputed that, during the time period in question,
SCI-Forest was operating under substantial COVID-19 mitigation restrictions. Dr. Montag
contends that he provided Plaintiff with medically appropriate care in the form of pain
medications, antibiotics to prevent infection, and 4 pulpotomy. He denies that the root canal
procedure was delayed for nonmedical reasons. Instead, he claims the treatment was delayed
based on then-existing COVID-19 mitigation restrictions and his own professional judgment that
Plaintiff s condition did not constitute an emergency. According to Dr. Montag, Plaintiff's
evidence establishes nothing more than a disagreement with his treatment decisions and medical
judgment. . □

The matter has been referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo
for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Act, 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 72. On August 9, 2024, Judge Lanzillo issued an R&R
recommending that this Court grant Dr. Montag’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 82.

Judge Lanzillo reasoned that deliberate indifference could not be established on the existing
record because the evidence would not support a finding that Dr. Montag failed to exercise his □

medical judgment relative to his treatment of Plaintiff's dental condition or that Dr. Montag
delayed Plaintiff's root canal for nonmedical reasons.
Plaintiff has filed objections to the R&R, which this Court has reviewed in full. ECF No.
88. Objections to a magistrate judge's disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo
review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 2(6)(3). Following
de novo review, “[t}he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

In his obj ections, Plaintiff argues at length that the pain medication Dr. Montag
prescribed during the four-month delay constituted inadequate treatment. Plaintiff insists that,
under Third Circuit law, he is not required to present expert testimony on this point because it
should be apparent toa layperson that Dr. Montag’s course of treatment violated a professional
standard of care. See ECF No. 88 at 4 (citing Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 536
(3d Cir. 2017). To that end, he disputes the Chief Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that his own
affidavit and those of two other inmates failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact
concerning Dr. Montag’s deliberate indifference. In addition, he contends that the Chief
Magistrate Judge failed to consider or address a “crucial piece of evidence,” ECF No. 88 88 at 5,

namely, an email from Joseph J. Silva, Director of the DOC’s Bureau of Health Care Services,
wherein the Director opined that Plaintiff “should have been examined by a dentist during the
period of time that elapsed between April 9 and June 8, 2020.” ECF No. 69-8 at 9. Plaintiff also
insists that the Chief Magistrate Judge made inappropriate credibility determinations and failed
to consider the severity of his symptoms, which included severe pain and an inability to sleep or

consume food. In Plaintiff's view, the evidence shows that Dr. Montag so departed from
accepted standards that he did not actually base his decision on his professional medical
judgment. ECF No. 88 at 10.
Plaintiff also argues that Dr. Montag unnecessarily delayed his root canal procedure and
opted instead for an easier and less efficacious treatment. ECF No. 88 at 11. He suggests that
the Court’s ruling at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage of the proceedings now precludes any inference that
Dr. Montag delayed treatment based on “Covid-19 restrictions” or “pandemic protocols.” Jd. at
13. He insists that the record documents the emergent nature of his condition. Jd. And he insist
there is sufficient evidence to establish Dr. Montag’s non-medical reasons for delaying treatment

-- including a May 21, 2020 sick call slip, ECF No. 69-5, and a sworn declaration from Inmate
Cerrone Furman, ECF No. 69-12.
Finally, Plaintiff faults the Chief Magistrate Judge for failing to give sufficient credence

to evidence that, he beliefs, undermines Dr. Montag’s credibility. ECF No. 88 at 16-19. He

asserts, for example, that the Chief Magistrate Judge did not properly consider evidence
pertaining to his request for a liquid diet and Dr. Montag’s alleged failure to follow up on that

request. Id. at 16-17. Elsewhere, he disputes Dr. Montag’s representation that he (Plaintiff)
submitted sick call slips “request[ing] more medication”; instead, Plaintiff states, he was
complaining about the inefficacy of the mediation. /d. at 18. Finally, Plaintiff objects to what he

characterizes as improper credibility determinations and factual findings by the Chief Magistrate
Judge concerning a “pulpotomy” that Dr. Montag performed during the time period at issue. Id.
at 18-20.

Having fully considered all of Plaintiffs objections, the Court is satisfied that the Chief
Magistrate Judge properly analyzed the evidence of record, consistent with the law of this
judicial circuit. Further, the Court perceives no inconsistency between its denial of Dr. Montag’s
motion to dismiss the complaint, ECF No. 45, and the granting of summary judgment at this
juncture, where the record has been more fully developed.
The Court need only make one additional observation regarding the email from Director
Silva, which Plaintiff relies on as a critical piece of evidence. Although Mr. Silva opined in his
email that Plaintiff should have been examined by a dentist at some point prior to June 9, 2020,
Mt. Silva also went on to note that “[t]he concern of the dentist was to mitigate the potential
spread of the Coronavirus within the prison and that is why he did not examine or treat Mr.
Johnson during this unprecedented (in our lifetimes) timeframe.” ECF No. 69-8 at 9. Mr, Silva
thus denied Plaintiff's administrative grievance appeal in part, “because the dentist did respond,
in the best way he felt was available, to every request made by Mr. Johnson[,]}” id., having
prescribed “[s]everal rounds of both antibiotics and analgesic (pain relieving) medications”
during the time period in question. Id. In other words, Director Silva recognized and credited the
fact that Dr. Montag exercised his own medical judgment in delaying his examination of
Plaintiffs tooth -- a fact which belies the existence of deliberate indifference. See Gindraw v.
Dendler, 967 F. Supp. 833, 836 (E.D. Pa. 1997) (“[T]he exercise by a doctor of his professional
judgment is never deliberate indifference[.]””) (citing Brown v. Borough of Chambersburg, 903
F.2d 274, 278 (3d Cir. 1990)).

In sum, after de novo review of the Complaint and documents in the case, including
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and all filings related thereto, the Chief Magistrate
|| Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Plaintiff's objections to the R&R,
IT IS ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2025, that the Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. [57] shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court will enter
judgment in favor of Defendant Dr. Montag, and against Plaintiff Marcus R. Johnson, with
respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim asserting deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation issued by Chief U.S.
Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on August 9, 2024, ECF No. [82], is adopted as the
opinion of this Court. Plaintiffs objection to the Report and Recommendation, ECF No, [88],
are OVERRULED.
There being no additional matters pending before the Court in the above-captioned case,
the Clerk is directed to mark this civil action “CLOSED.”

hdin PEiedic Le.
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11104668. Public record. Not legal advice.