Holliday v. Norwood et al
ORDER ADOPTING 31 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in toto ; granting 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Further all claims against Defendant Greeley in both his official and individual capacities and Defendant Norwood in his individual capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 25, 2017. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
Case No. 6:15-cv-6041
SHERIFF DAVID NORWOOD; JAIL
ADMINISTRATOR NATHAN GREELEY;
and JAILER JUSTIN CREECH
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed July 20, 2017, by the Honorable
Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 31.
Judge Ford recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) be
granted. 1 Plaintiff has responded with objections. ECF No. 32. The Court finds the matter ripe
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction, Benton Unit,
and files this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a denial of medical care and an
ineffective grievance process while he was incarcerated in the Ouachita County Detention Center.
Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendant Greeley in both his official and individual capacity.
Plaintiff is proceeding against Defendant Norwood in his individual capacity. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that, after falling from his top bunk, his medical requests were ignored for several
weeks. He also alleges that there was no grievance procedure.
Defendants Greeley and Norwood submitted affidavits stating that they were not part of
the medical staff and were not made aware of any medical issues concerning Plaintiff. ECF Nos.
28-2, 28-3. Thus, Judge Ford concluded that Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against
Defendant Creech has not been served, and Plaintiff has indicated that he did not intend to add Defendant Creech to
his amended complaint. ECF No. 32, p. 1. Thus, all claims against Defendant Creech are dismissed without prejudice.
Defendants Greeley and Norwood were based solely on the theory of respondeat superior liability
and should be dismissed as a matter of law. 2 See Kulow v. Nix, 28 F.3d 855, 859 (8th Cir. 1994)
(“[I]f any claim of medical indifference . . . is to succeed, it must be brought against the individual
directly responsible for [Plaintiff’s] medical care.”).
Plaintiff’s sole objection deals with the finding in the Report and Recommendation that
Defendant Greeley was not aware of any medical issues concerning Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s objection
states that Greeley’s “statement is not truthful” because Plaintiff spoke to Greeley about his
“problem” and “the whole detention center know [sic] about this.” ECF No. 32, p. 1. However,
Plaintiff does not point to any evidence in the record that would support a finding that Greeley
knew about Plaintiff’s medical issues. Because there is no evidence in the record to refute
Greeley’s sworn statement that he was not aware of Plaintiff’s medical issues, Defendant Greeley
is entitled to summary judgment on the denial of medical care claim.
Based on its own de novo review, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and adopts the
Report and Recommendation in toto. ECF No. 31. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Greeley in both his official
and individual capacities and Defendant Norwood in his individual capacity are DISMISSED
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of August, 2017.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Judge Ford also concluded that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment regarding Plaintiff’s ineffective
grievance process claim against Defendants in their individual capacities and all official capacity claims against
Defendant Greeley. Plaintiff made no specific objections to the Report and Recommendation regarding these
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?