Campbell v. Smith et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 51 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 5/6/20. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff at address on docket sheet.) (dfk)

Case 3:17-cv-00185-FKB Document 53 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS EDWARD
CAMPBELL

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17cv185-FKB

NURSE SMITH, et al.

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Thomas Edward Campbell, formerly a state prisoner, brought this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate medical care. His claims arise out of
a gastric bleed and subsequent emergency surgery in June of 2016; further details of
those claims are set out in this court’s order of March 4, 2020. [50]. In that order, the
Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion as to Defendant Kimberly
Townsend and denied the motion as to Defendant Unquire Smith. The motion was
denied without prejudice as to Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Rolando Abangan concerning
an alleged six-day delay in providing pain medication.1 Presently before the Court is Dr.
Abangan’s renewed motion for summary judgment [51] and the motion of Unquire Smith
for reconsideration [52]. The Court concludes that Dr. Abangan’s motion should be
granted and that Defendant Smith’s motion should be denied.
In support of his renewed motion, Dr. Abangan has provided authenticated
copies of Plaintiff’s medical records. The records indicate that on June 29, 2016, the
day Plaintiff returned from the hospital following his surgery, Dr. Abangan approved a
prescription for Norco for pain. [49] at 8-9. Thus, it is clear that Dr. Abangan was not

1

The Court concluded that Plaintiff’s allegation that Dr. Abangan prescribed an inadequate dosage of his
pain medication failed to raise a constitutional issue.

Case 3:17-cv-00185-FKB Document 53 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 3

the cause of the alleged delay in Plaintiff’s obtaining pain medication. For this reason,
Dr. Abangan’s motion is granted, and the claim against him is dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Smith knew he was bleeding and in need of
medical attention but nevertheless failed to obtain assistance for him, causing a delay in
treatment by approximately 12 hours, as well as increased suffering during this period.
In his motion for reconsideration, Smith cites to the proposition, set out in the previous
order, that where the alleged deliberate indifference is a delay in treatment, a prisoner
must show that the delay resulted in substantial harm. See [50] at 3 (citing Coleman v.
Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 765-66 (5th Cir. 2014)). Smith argues that there is no evidence
that the delay occasioned by him resulted in substantial harm. Apparently Smith is
relying on the absence of evidence that Plaintiff’s need for emergency surgery was
caused by the delay. But suffering as a result of delay can itself constitute substantial
harm. Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 464-65 (5th Cir. 2006). Some evidence supports
that Smith’s inaction may have caused Plaintiff to suffer approximately 12 hours from
bleeding, weakness, and periods of unconsciousness. And the medical records indicate
that when Plaintiff was finally seen at the emergency room, he was suffering from acute
anemia and hemorrhagic shock. [49] at 3. This evidence, as well as Plaintiff’s own
sworn statements, creates a genuine dispute as to material facts, precluding summary
judgment in Smith’s favor. For this reason, Defendant Smith’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.
A new trial date for Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Smith will be set by
separate order.
2

Case 3:17-cv-00185-FKB Document 53 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 3

So ordered, this the 6th day of May, 2020.

s/ F. Keith Ball____________________
United States Magistrate Judge

3