Munn v. Morris et al

Filing 131

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 127 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 16, 2013. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
WILLIE MUNN
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 4:11-cv-4085

SHERIFF BUTCH MORRIS; and
JANA TALLANT

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed July 12, 2013, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 127). Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant’s claims be dismissed because no
issues of fact are triable to a jury. On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Bryant’s
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 130). After reviewing the record de novo, the Court
adopts Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation as its own.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Bryant’s recommendation because: (1) the Howard County
Detention Center (“HCDC’) denied him medical care by not employing a nurse and refusing to
transport him to a personal appointment with a gastroenterologist in Texarkana; and (2) the Court
did not authenticate and did not timely disclose Plaintiff’s medical records from Dr. Hashmukh
Patel. Plaintiff already made these arguments before the court, and Judge Bryant fully addressed
them in his Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Bryant for the following
reasons.
First, the HCDC afforded Plaintiff access to medical care. To prevail on his Eighth
Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment, Plaintiff must prove that Defendants acted
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

1

(1976); Luckert v. Dodge County, 684 F.3d 808, 817 (8th Cir. 2012). The HCDC’s decision not
to employ a nurse does not amount to deliberate indifference because the HCDC offered Plaintiff
access to medical care through its sick-call procedure.

Additionally, the gastroenterologist

refused to see Plaintiff because he was incarcerated. The HCDC did not deny the appointment.
Second, Plaintiff cannot object to his own evidence. As Judge Bryant stated, the Court
subpoenaed Dr. Patel’s medical records on behalf of Plaintiff (ECF No. 119), and Plaintiff
submitted the records to the evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff may not submit evidence to the Court
and then object to its authenticity and untimely disclosure.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts
Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 127). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of August, 2013.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

2