Bennett v. Pennington et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 36 and granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/3/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JEFFERY C. BENNETT
BRUCE PENNINGTON et al.
The Court has considered Magistrate Judge H. David Young's
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, Document No. 36, and
Bennett's objections, Document No. 37. De novo review of this record shows
delay in getting the antibiotics during the year-end holidays and no full-court
press to get the dental appointment sooner. All this is regrettable but not
unconstitutional. The Court therefore adopts the Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition with a further word. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court understands that dental problems can be very painful, that
uncertainty about the upcoming appointment distressed Bennett, and that
almost 10 weeks is a long time to wait for a dental appointment when a
person needs teeth pulled. But the precedent is clear that negligence, even
gross negligence, is not deliberate indifference. E.g., Estate of Rosenberg v.
Crandell, 56 F .3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). The circumstances here did not rise to
the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, especially in light of what the
prison staff did before Bennett's scheduled appointment-requesting the
antibiotic prescriptions, administering topical pain reliever, and providing
lots of ibuprofen.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Document No. 27, Is
granted. Bennett's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
3 October 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?