Williams v. Hill et al
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending that 120 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 5/7/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere on 4/23/09. (hph) (Docket text modified on 5/21/2009 to correct the description of the document filed.) (thd).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS P I N E BLUFF DIVISION T H E L M A WILLIAMS, JR., ADC #93197 V. S H E I L A HILL, et al. R E C O M M E N D E D DISPOSITION I. P r o c e d u r e for Filing Objections: T h e following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District C o u rt Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party may serve and file written objections to th is recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or le g a l basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify th a t finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of yo u r objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no la te r than eleven (11) days from the date you receive the Partial Recommended D isp o sitio n . A copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely o b jec tio n s may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. M a il your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to: C lerk , United States District Court E a ste rn District of Arkansas 6 0 0 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 L ittle Rock, AR 72201-3325 No. 5:07CV00299 SWW-BD DEFENDANTS
B a c k gro u n d : P la in tif f Thelma Williams Jr., an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC")
in m a te, brings this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his E ig h th Amendment rights have been violated. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that in O c to b e r 2006, he went to sick call complaining of a cold and was provided a medication th a t caused an adverse reaction. Plaintiff complains that the tablets that he was provided w e re "eating up" his body and his blood. He alleges that Defendants first ignored his c o n d itio n before providing him the "bad medicine" and then denied him treatment f o l lo w in g the adverse reaction. Plaintiff originally named as Defendants S. Hill, Ms. G re e n , J. Stell, and Wendy Kelley, in both their individual and official capacities. The C o u rt previously dismissed all claims against Defendant Kelley (#35). Now pending is the remaining Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#120). In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law. The Court a g re e s. For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendants' motion (#120) should b e GRANTED. III. D is c u s s io n : A. S tand ard
S u m m a r y judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most f a v o ra b le to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact. FED. R. C IV. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty
L o b b y , Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246 (1986). Once the moving party has successfully carried its b u rd e n under Rule 56(c), the nonmoving party has an affirmative burden to go beyond the p le a d in g s and by depositions, affidavits, or otherwise, designate "specific facts showing th a t there is a genuine issue for trial." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Mosley v. City of N o r th w o o d s , 415 F.3d 908, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2005) ("The nonmoving party may not rest o n mere allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of sp ec ific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.") If the opposing party fails to carry th a t burden or fails to establish the existence of an essential element of its case on which th a t party will bear the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment should be granted. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. "Although it is to be construed liberally, a pro se complaint m u s t contain specific facts supporting its conclusions." Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1 3 3 4 , 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). B. D e lib e ra te Indifference Claim
Prison officials or their agents violate the Eighth Amendment if they commit "acts o r omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to [an inmate's] s e rio u s medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976). The E ig h th Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted this standard as including both an o b je c tiv e and a subjective component: "The [plaintiff] must demonstrate (1) that [he] su f f e re d [from] objectively serious medical needs and (2) that the prison officials actually k n e w of but deliberately disregarded those needs." Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234,
1 2 3 9 (8th Cir. 1997). "The prisoner must show more than negligence, more even than g ro s s negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the le v e l of a constitutional violation." Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th C ir. 1995). When an inmate alleges that a delay in medical treatment rises to the level of an E ig h th Amendment violation, "the objective seriousness of the deprivation should also be m e a su re d `by reference to the effect of delay in treatment.'" Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1 3 2 4 , 1326 (8th Cir. 1995), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reece v. Groose, 6 0 F.3d 487, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F .3 d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir. 1994)). Therefore, the inmate "must place verifying medical e v id e n c e in the record to establish the detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment." C ro w ley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500, 502 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Hill, 40 F.3d at 1188); s e e also Jackson v. Hallazgo, 30 Fed. Appx. 668 (8th Cir. Mar. 6, 2002) (unpub. per c u ria m ) (citing Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d at 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997) ("[a]n inmate's f a ilu re to place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect o f delay in medical treatment precludes a claim of deliberate indifference to medical n e e d s" )); O'Neal v. White, 221 F.3d 1343, *1 (8th Cir. July 12, 2000) (unpub. per c u ria m ) (citing Crowley, 109 F.3d at 502) (concluding that plaintiff's "failure to submit v e rif yin g medical evidence to show a detrimental effect from any delay in tests, surgery, o r alternative treatments was fatal to his Eighth Amendment claim")).
H e re , the undisputed evidence presented by Defendants shows that on October 11, 2 0 0 6 , Plaintiff submitted a sick call request when he began to suffer cold symptoms. On T h u rs d a y, October 18, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Defendants in the infirmary. At that tim e , according to Plaintiff, Defendant Green provided him what is believed to be a "cold s e t up," which included Tylenol and Chlor-Trimeton, an antihistimine.1 After Plaintiff f in i sh e d taking the "cold set up," Plaintiff alleges that he began to suffer an adverse re a ctio n to the medicine. However, rather than submit a sick call request, Plaintiff su b m itted a grievance and an affidavit. The grievance was not received by the infirmary u n til November 30, 2006, three days after Plaintiff was transferred to the Delta Regional U n it of the ADC. The Plaintiff's allegations fail to support a deliberate indifference c la im as a matter of law. A s an initial matter, the Court is hesitant to say that Plaintiff suffered from a " se rio u s medical need." A serious medical need is "one that is so obvious that even a la yp e rs o n would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention." Vaughn v. G re e n e County, 438 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir. 2005). Although Plaintiff complains that the m e d ic in e in question was "eating up" his body and blood, Plaintiff has failed to provide th e Court any medical records indicating that he suffered any kind of allergic reaction to
In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants contend that none of the D e f en d a n ts provided Plaintiff the medicine at issue. However, Plaintiff identifies D e f e n d a n t Green as the responsible party. Considering all evidence in the light most f a v o ra b le to Plaintiff, the Court will assume that Defendant Green provided Plaintiff the m e d ic a tio n in question. 5
th e medication in question or that he was provided the wrong medication. Plaintiff a d m its that other than the rash on his legs, he has not been treated for any medical e m e rg e n c y relating to the "bad medicine." Moreover, on October 25, 2006, three days a f te r Plaintiff allegedly began experiencing adverse reactions to the medication, he was e v a lu a te d by Nurse Vera Miller, and he denied having any problems with his health. In addition, Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence that his condition w o rs e n e d as a result of any of the Defendants' failure to act. Although Plaintiff claims th a t he suffered from an intermittent rash on his legs for 27 days, he has failed to provide a n y "verified medical evidence" to establish any detrimental effect of any alleged delay in tre a tm e n t. Further, Plaintiff's repeated assertion that he was denied lotion for the rash on h is legs is the subject of another lawsuit brought by Plaintiff that has now been dismissed. See Williams v. Cook, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, C a s e No. 5:07cv00300 JMM/HDY. C. P la in tif f 's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment
In his response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff repeatedly a ss e rts that Defendants are lying and that they have submitted falsified documents to the C o u r t. However, Plaintiff may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of other parties' p le a d in g s to survive a motion for summary judgment. Rather, Plaintiff must set out s p e c if ic facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). Here, Plaintiff h a s failed to do so. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
C o n c lu s io n : T h e Court hereby recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment
(# 1 2 0 ) be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice. D A T E D this 23rd day of April, 2009.
____________________________________ U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?