Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_17-cv-00254/USCOURTS-ared-5_17-cv-00254-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

GARRETT CHAMBLIS PLAINTIFF 

v. 5:17-CV-00254-KGB-JTR 

 

ESTELLA BLAND, GERALDINE 

CAMPBELL, PATRICK DRUMMOND, 

AMANDA ROSE SACKETT, AND 

RONALD STUKEY DEFENDANTS 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION 

 The following Recommended Disposition (ARecommendation@) has been sent 

to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. Any party may file written 

objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and include the 

factual or legal basis for disagreeing with the Recommendation. An objection to a 

factual finding must specifically identify the finding of fact believed to be wrong 

and describe the evidence that supports that belief. 

 An original and one copy of the objections must be received in the office of 

the United States District Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 19
2 

If no objections are filed, Judge Baker may adopt this Recommendation without 

independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you 

may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. Introduction 

 Plaintiff Garrett Chamblis (AChamblis@), a pro se prisoner, initiated this § 

1983 action against five employees of Correct Care Solutions, Inc., a private health 

care provider for Arkansas Department of Correction prisoners. According to 

Chamblis, Defendants APRN Estella Bland (“APRN Bland”), ARPN Geraldine 

Campbell (“APRN Campbell”), ARPN Patrick Drummond (“APRN Drummond”), 

RN Amanda Rose Sackett (“RN Sackett”), and Dr. Ronald Stukey (“Dr. Stukey”), 

denied him adequate medical care for injuries to his right upper arm and shoulder 

and committed “medical malpractice/negligence.” 

 Chamblis’s only remaining constitutional claim is against APRN Bland.1 He 

alleges that, between May 18 and August 29, 2017, she was deliberately indifferent 

to his serious medical needs related to his upper arm and shoulder injuries. 

 

1 The Court previously granted summary judgment and dismissed Chamblis’s 

constitutional claims against the other four remaining Defendants because he failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies on those claims. (Docs. 81, 83). 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 19
3 

However, his supplemental state law “medical malpractice/negligence” claims, 

spanning the time period between November 2016 to September 2017, are also still 

pending against all five Defendants. (Docs. 2 at p. 41, 81 & 83). 

 Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Brief in Support, 

and a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. (Docs. 87-89). APRN Bland 

argues she is entitled to summary judgment on Chamblis’s inadequate medical care 

claim, and all Defendants argue that Chamblis’s pendent state law claims should be 

dismissed. Chamblis has filed a Response and supporting Brief. (Docs. 98, 99). 

 For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

should be granted on the constitutional claim Chamblis has asserted against APRN 

Bland. The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

Chamblis’s pendent state law claims, making it unnecessary to address Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of those claims, on the merits. 

 Before addressing the merits of Chamblis’s constitutional claim against 

APRN Bland, the Court will summarize the relevant undisputed facts:2

 

2 Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to 

the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. 

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 19
4 

 1. Chamblis initially was incarcerated in the East Arkansas Regional Unit 

(“EARU”). On May 9, 2017, he was transferred to VSM Supermax (“VSM”). 

(Doc. 2 at ¶ 5, 19). 

 2. APRN Bland is a licensed APRN3

 and a Board Certified Family Nurse 

Practitioner. She worked at VSM during the time period relevant to Chamblis’s 

claims against her. 

 3. APRN Campbell is a licensed APRN who worked at EARU during the 

relevant time period. 

 4. APRN Drummond is a licensed APRN who worked at EARU during 

the relevant time period. 

 5. RN Sackett is a Registered Nurse who worked at EARU during the 

relevant time period. 

 6. Dr. Stukey is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine who was a unit 

 

(1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine 

dispute of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once that has been done, the nonmoving party 

must present specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See Fed R. Civ. 

P. 56(c); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). 

3 An APRN, or Advanced Practice Registered Nurse, is considered a mid-level provider 

within the ADC, where APRN job duties involve assessing, diagnosing, and managing patients, 

ordering tests, and prescribing medications. (See Docs. 89-2, 89-4, 89-5). 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 4 of 19
5 

physician at VSM during the relevant time period. 

 7. In November of 2016, while housed at EARU, Chamblis experienced a 

“constant sharp severe pain in his right side and armpit area” while exercising. 

(Doc. 2 at ¶ 13). 

 8. On November 22, 2016, RN Sackett examined Chamblis in the EARU 

infirmary. Chamblis told RN Sackett: “I have tore my muscle or something my 

wing (Right Side) I have knotted up muscles.” Chamblis reported that the injury 

occurred two months earlier, when he was doing pull ups. Since that time, the 

muscles remained painful when he exercised. RN Sackett offered to prescribe 

Naproxen for pain, but concluded that Chamblis required no further medical 

treatment. Chamblis refused the offer of pain medication. (Medical Records, Exh. 

A to Def.’s Statement of Material Facts, Doc. 89-1 at 1 (sealed)).4 

 9. On February 21, 2017, APRN Drummond saw Chamblis and examined 

the area around his armpit, where the proximal triceps tendon connects to the 

 

 4 Defendants have attached the following exhibits to their Statement of Facts: (1) 

Medical Records, Exhibit A, Doc. 89-1 (sealed); (2) Declaration of Patrick Drummond, Exhibit 

B, Doc. 89-2; (3) Declaration of Dr. Ronald Stukey, Exhibit C, Doc. 89-3; (4) Declaration of Dr. 

Jeffrey Stieve, Exhibit D, Doc. 89-4; and (5) Declaration of Estella Bland, Exhibit E, Doc. 89-5. 

. 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 5 of 19
6 

humerus. After feeling a knot, APRN Drummond ordered an x-ray of Chamblis’s 

right humerus, but refused his request for a Tramadol prescription. Instead APRN 

Drummond prescribed Ibuprofen and Tylenol for pain. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at pp. 

4-8; APRN Drummond Declaration, Exh. B or Doc. 89-2; Dr. Jeffrey Stieve 

Declaration, Exh. D or Doc. 89-4). 

 10. On February 21, 2017, Chamblis’s right shoulder was x-rayed at Forrest 

City Medical Center (“FCMC”). The radiologist’s report indicated that Chamblis’s 

right humerus and shoulder joint were normal. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 7-8). 

 11. On March 8, 2017, Chamblis completed a sick call request, stating: 

I need to see the doctor about the ripped muscle in my side, I need to 

be scheduled for an appointment to have surgery to get it fixed. This 

is the 4th time requesting this. 

(Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 9). 

 12. On March 23, 2017, APRN Drummond examined Chamblis. He noted 

that conservative treatment, with rest and pain medications, had failed to resolve the 

knot in Chamblis’s right “proximal triceps tendon.” He ordered an MRI to rule out 

a ruptured tendon. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 10-12; Exh. B or Doc. 89-2). 

 13. On April 17, 2017, Chamblis was transported to FCMC for an MRI. 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 6 of 19
7 

However, instead of following APRN Drummond’s order, an unknown person at 

FCMC, presumably the MRI tech, wrote: “MRI of humerus would not include 

effected area, please order CT thorax and note mass/cyst in armpit.” (Exh. A or 

Doc. 89-1 at 16-19; Exh. B or Doc. 89-2). 

 14. On April 19, 2017, APRN Campbell reviewed the note from the MRI 

tech and scheduled Chamblis for a CT. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 19-22; Exh. B or 

Doc. 89-2; Exh. D or Doc. 89-4). 

 15. On May 5, 2017, Chamblis was transported to FCMC for a CT to assess 

a “mass or cyst” in his right armpit. The CT imaging report revealed “a mildly 

enlarged right axillary lymph node present . . . [which] could be infectious or 

inflammatory.” A follow-up appointment was recommended. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-

1 at 23-24; Exh. B or Doc. 89-2; Exh. D or Doc. 89-3). 

 16. Later on May 5, 2017, at 12:04 p.m., RN Sackett noted Chamblis’s 

return to the EARU and wrote that the CD from “FCMC Radiology” had been placed 

in his medical jacket to be routed to a medical provider for review. (Exh. A or Doc. 

89-1 at 25; Exh. B or Doc. 89-2; Exh. D or Doc. 89-4). 

 17. On Tuesday, May 9, 2017, at 7:34 a.m., Chamblis was transferred to 

VSM. His medical jacket was transported with him to VSM. It appears no medical 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 7 of 19
8 

provider at EARU had an opportunity to review the CT results before Chamblis was 

transported to VSM. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 26; Exh. B or Doc. 89-1 at 3). 

 18. On May 11, 2017, Chamblis submitted a sick call request seeking the 

results of the CT scan. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 27). 

 19. On May 18, 2017, APRN Bland treated Chamblis. Her notes state 

that she reviewed his “jacket,” but she could not locate the CT results.5 APRN 

Bland’s plan was to have medical staff obtain the CT results and then schedule 

another follow-up visit with Chamblis. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 28-31; Exh. E or 

Doc. 89-5). 

 20. During APRN Bland’s examination of Chamblis on May 18, he told 

her that he was in extreme pain and that he needed Tramadol to effectively address 

his pain. APRN Bland refused to prescribe Tramadol. 6 (Doc. 99 at 98). In 

making this decision, APRN Bland relied on the fact that, during the preceding two-

 

5 The record does not reveal whether: (1) Chamblis’s medical jacket arrived at VSM 

with or without the CD containing the CT results; (2) assuming the CD got separated from the 

medical jacket, when and how that occurred; or (3) the CD was in the medical jacket all along, but 

simply was overlooked by APRN Bland on May 18, 2017 and by Dr. Stukey on July 28, 2017. 

None of these unresolved questions are material to the resolution of Chamblis’s constitutional 

claim against APRN Bland. 

6 Tramadol is a synthetic drug which is classified as an opioid due to its chemical makeup. See https://www.drugs.com/ppa/tramadol.html (accessed February 26, 2020). 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 8 of 19
9 

week period, Chamblis had signed to receive Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen 

(Tylenol) for pain, in sufficient quantities that he should not have needed any 

additional pain medication at that time. (Bland Declaration, Exhibit E or Doc. 89-

5). 

 21. APRN Bland’s examination of Chamblis on May 18, 2017, was the first 

and only time she saw him during the relevant time period, and it serves as the sole 

basis for his § 1983 inadequate medical care claim against her. (Exh. E or Doc. 89-

5). 

 22. On June 23, 2017, Chamblis submitted a sick call request complaining 

of “two broke fingers, riped [sic] muscle, and elbow has a hole in it.” However, he 

later refused to be seen for this request. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 34). 

 23. On July 17, 2017, Chamblis submitted another sick call request, again 

complaining about a ripped muscle and requesting another CT scan. (Exh. A or 

Doc. 89-1 at 36). 

 24. On July 28, 2017, Dr. Stukey examined Chamblis, with the intention of 

following up on the earlier CT scan. However, he could not locate the CD 

containing the CT report. He planned to have Chamblis return after the CD was 

located. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 39; Exh. B or Doc. 89-2 at 2). 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 9 of 19
10 

 25. For reasons that are unclear, it was not until September 1, 2017, that 

Dr. Stukey located and reviewed the May 5, 2017 CT scan and met with Chamblis 

to discuss the findings. To address the CT scan’s recommendation for follow up 

care to assess a “mildly enlarged right axillary lymph node,” Dr. Stukey’s treatment 

decision was to refer Chamblis to a general surgeon to determine whether the lymph 

node needed to be biopsied. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 40-43; Exh. B or Doc. 89-2; 

Exh. C or Doc. 89-3). 

 26. During Dr. Stukey’s appointment with Chamblis, he reported he was 

routinely engaging in “extremely active” exercise, including over 1000 push-ups and 

several sets of pull ups on a daily basis. Chamblis reported that it was his “lay 

opinion” he had a “muscle defect” requiring surgery in order to return his arm to “a 

superior level.” Dr. Stukey disagreed and explained that the so-called “muscle 

defect” had no impact on Chamblis’s day-to-day activities and that no surgeon would 

be likely to entertain such a surgery. While Chamblis became very angry and asked 

to leave, he agreed to Dr. Stuckey’s plan to refer him to a general surgeon for further 

evaluation of the lymph node. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 40, Exh. C or Doc. 89-3). 

 27. On November 7, 2017, Dr. Buchman, a general surgeon, examined 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 10 of 19
11 

Chamblis. He noted a questionable right axillary soft mass. His plan was to 

review the CT and determine if a biopsy was necessary. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 

44). 

 28. On November 9, 2017, APRN Bland reordered Acetaminophen to treat 

Chamblis’s complaint of discomfort in his right armpit. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 

45). 

 29. On November 20, 2017, in response to Chamblis’s request for “other 

medication” for his right arm pain, Dr. Stukey prescribed nortriptyline. (Exh. A or 

Doc. 89-1 at 49). 

 30. On December 21, 2017, Dr. Stukey examined Chamblis for “continued 

pain of right upper inner arm.” Chamblis reported issues when he tried to do pullups, along with significant weakness and pain in the triceps area with forward and 

overhead reaching. Dr. Stukey assessed Chamblis with a “healing triceps muscular 

tear.” Dr. Stukey noted that a general surgery consult was pending for a swollen 

lymph gland, but he ordered an additional orthopedic consult to address the muscle 

tear in Chamblis’s right triceps. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 50). 

 31. On January 9, 2018, Dr. Buchman requested an updated CT scan, and 

APRN Bland prepared a consultation request for a second CT. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 11 of 19
12 

1 at 55). 

 32. On January 26, 2018, Dr. Antonio Howard, a board certified physiatrist 

at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences,7

 provided the orthopedic consult 

ordered by Dr. Stukey on December 21, 2017. Dr. Howard diagnosed Chamblis 

with a “proximal long head of triceps tear” and chronic right shoulder pain. Dr. 

Howard ordered an MRI of Chamblis’s right shoulder. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 57). 

 33. On February 5, 2018, the follow-up CT ordered by Dr. Buchman was 

performed at Jefferson Regional Medical Center, resulting in the following 

impression: 

Right axillary lump corresponds to an accessory slip of latissimus dorsi 

muscle, as an anatomic variant; no mass, lymphadenopathy, or fluid 

collection demonstrated. 

(Exh A or Doc. 89-1 at 61) (emphasis added). 

 34. On March 2, 2018, the MRI ordered by Dr. Howard was performed at 

UAMS, resulting in the following impression: 

Complete chronic tear of the latissimus dorsi tendon with the torn 

retracted tendon end seen in the right axillary region. 

The anterior fibers of the latissimus dorsi muscle simulate a small mass 

 

7 See https://uamshealth.com/provider/antonio-t-howard/ (website accessed February 20, 

2020).

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 12 of 19
13 

along the right chest wall close to the axillary region. Multiple 

surrounding enlarged lymph nodes which demonstrate a fatty hilum and 

are likely benign and reactive. 

(Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 63-65). 

 35. On March 28, 2018, Dr. Buchman reviewed the results of the CT, 

concluded that Chamblis’s injury was consistent with a muscle tear, no lymph node 

biopsy was necessary, and released Chamblis from care with no recommendation 

for follow up. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 70). 

 36. On June 11, 2018, Dr. Howard examined Chambliss. He concluded 

Chambliss had a complete tear of the latissimus dorsi, advised Chambliss he could 

continue activity as tolerated, further advised that no surgery was indicated, 

recommended analgesics as needed for his shoulder pain, and released Chamblis 

from care with no recommendation for follow up. (Exh. A or Doc. 89-1 at 71). 

II. Discussion 

A. Chamblis’s Deliberate Indifference Claim Against APRN Bland 

 Should Be Dismissed, With Prejudice. 

 To demonstrate that his inadequate medical care claim against APRN Bland 

should proceed to trial, Chamblis must produce evidence showing that: (1) he had 

an objectively serious need for medical care to treat his right upper arm and shoulder 

injuries; and (2) APRN Bland subjectively knew of, but was deliberately indifferent 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 13 of 19
14 

to, that serious medical need. See Saylor v. Nebraska, 812 F.3d 637, 644 (8th Cir. 

2016); Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 460 (8th Cir. 2010). 

 Chamblis’s problems with his right upper arm and shoulder created an 

objectively serious need for medical care. However, there is no evidence that 

APRN Bland was deliberately indifferent in providing the medical care he needed 

during the one time she saw Chamblis and provided treatment. 

 Chamblis contends that, on May 18, 2017, APRN Bland violated his 

constitutional rights by: (1) failing to prescribe effective pain medication; (2) 

failing to locate the CT results; (3) and refusing to reorder another CT. Chamblis 

argues that these medical decisions unnecessarily prolonged his pain and suffering 

and denied him appropriate medical care and treatment. (Doc. 99 at 5). 

 On the issue of pain medication, ARPN Bland has submitted a declaration 

explaining that she did not prescribe the narcotic pain medication that Chamblis 

requested because he was already taking Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen. (Exhibit 

E or Doc. 89-5). Defendants have also submitted a declaration from medical expert, 

Dr. Jeffrey Stieve (“Dr. Stieve”), who is a licensed physician. In his medical 

opinion, Chamblis was prescribed “appropriate medication” when he complained of 

pain. (Exhibit D or Doc. 89-4 at 2). 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 14 of 19
15 

 Chamblis’s disagreement with APRN Bland’s medical decision on the 

appropriate medication for his pain is not sufficient to create a material question of 

fact about whether APRN Bland acted with deliberate indifference in making that 

decision. It is well settled that a prisoner’s “mere disagreement” with a medical 

provider’s prescribed course of treatment is insufficient to establish a deliberate 

indifference claim. Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 460 (8th Cir. 2010); Dulany 

v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239-40 (8th Cir. 1997) (“In the face of medical records 

indicating that treatment was provided and physician affidavits indicating that the 

care provided was adequate, an inmate cannot create a question of fact by merely 

stating that she did not feel she received adequate treatment.”). 

 With regard to the CT scan, APRN Bland states that the CT results were not 

available to her when she examined Chamblis on May 18. However, because she 

realized it was important to locate and review the CT results, she directed other staff 

to locate and review those results. (Exhibit E or Doc. 89-5). Dr. Stieve opines that 

APRN Bland’s plan to ask medical staff to obtain the CT results and to reschedule a 

mid-level visit, once the records were obtained, was medically appropriate. Dr. 

Stieve also opines that he sees “no evidence of medical negligence” on her part. 

(Exhibit D or Doc. 89-4 at 4). 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 15 of 19
16 

Chamblis speculates that the CD containing his CT results was in the front of 

his medical jacket, but APRN Bland failed or deliberately refused to review the 

records. (Doc. 99 at 5). At best, this speculation, even if true, would demonstrate 

only that APRN Bland was negligent, which is insufficient to prove deliberate 

indifference. To prevail on his argument that APRN Bland was deliberately 

indifferent, Chamblis must present evidence capable of establishing that APRN 

Bland “reckless[ly] disregard[ed] a known risk.” Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 543, 

545 (8th Cir. 2001). In other words, Athere must be actual knowledge of the risk of 

harm, followed by deliberate inaction amounting to callousness.@ Bryan v. Endell, 

141 F.3d 1290, 1291 (8th Cir. 1998). Even if APRN Bland had located and read 

the CT results on May 18th, it would not have put her on notice of any risk of harm 

to Chamblis, because those results merely recommended “follow-up care.” 

Finally, while APRN Bland’s failure to locate the May 5, 2017 CT scan may 

have resulted in a short delay in Chamblis receiving additional medical care, he has 

failed to present any verifying medical evidence demonstrating that he was harmed 

by any such delay. Ultimately, Chamblis received the follow-up care recommended 

by his first CT scan, in the form of an additional CT scan and a consultation with a 

general surgeon, Dr. Buchman. Chamblis also received an MRI and a consultation 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 16 of 19
17 

with a physiatrist, Dr. Howard. The additional testing, as interpreted by these two 

doctors, determined that Chamblis’s enlarged lymph nodes were either a muscle 

variant or the remnants of a tendon or muscle tear. Both Dr. Buchman and Dr. 

Howard recommended no further treatment. Thus, even if Chamblis could prove 

that APRN Bland knew the risk of harm and acted with deliberate indifference in 

not locating the CT results, he cannot prove that he suffered any harm as a result of 

the short delay in treatment caused by APRN Bland’s actions or inactions on May 

18, 2017. 

Accordingly, APRN Bland’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Chamblis’s 

inadequate medical care claim should be granted, and Chamblis’s sole remaining 

constitutional claim should be dismissed, with prejudice. 

B. Chamblis’s Pendent State Law Claims Should Be Dismissed, 

 Without Prejudice. 

 The Court must now consider whether, in the absence of any federal claims, 

it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chamblis’s remaining state-law 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. It is well settled that a federal trial court may 

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state law claims when all 

of the federal claims over which the court had original jurisdiction have been 

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 342 (8th 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 17 of 19
18 

Cir. 2005) (holding that a district court did not err when it declined to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over a state medical malpractice claim after the inmate’s 

federal claims were dismissed due to a lack of exhaustion). 

 “[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, 

the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent [or supplemental] 

jurisdiction doctrine - judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity - will 

point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” 

Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 619 n. 7 

(1988). The Eighth Circuit has stressed “the need to exercise judicial restraint and 

avoid state law issues whenever possible” and to “provide great deference and 

comity to state court forums to decide issues involving state law questions.” 

Candor Corp. v. City of St. Paul, 912 F.2d 215, 220 (8th Cir. 1990). 

 After considering all of these factors, the Court should decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Chamblis’s pendent state law claims. Thus, the 

Court should dismiss those remaining claims, without prejudice, so that Chamblis 

can pursue them, if he chooses, in state court. 

III. Conclusion 

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 18 of 19
19 

 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Estalla Bland, 

Geraldine Campbell, Patrick Drummond, Amanda Rose Sackett, and Dr. Ronald 

Stuckey (Doc. 87) be GRANTED IN PART, on Chamblis’s sole remaining 

constitutional claim that APRN Bland provided inadequate medical care. 

2. Chamblis’s constitutional claim against Defendant APRN Bland be 

DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. 

 3. All remaining state law claims asserted by Chamblis against 

Defendants APRN Bland, APRN Campbell, APRN Drummond, RN Sackett, and 

Dr. Stukey be DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on the Court’s decision not to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. 

 It is further recommended that the Court certify that an in forma pauperis

appeal would not be taken in good faith.

 Dated this 26th day of February, 2020. 

 ___________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:17-cv-00254-KGB Document 102 Filed 02/26/20 Page 19 of 19