Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04009/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04009-6/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Defendants indicate Cross was seen by a dentist on March 9, 2005, Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 26. Cross states he was

1

transferred to the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) shortly after the appointment, Resp. at ¶ 44. Nothing before

the court establishes the day of the transfer of Cross to the ADC.

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

PHIL OTIS CROSS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-4009

 

H.L. PHILLIPS, Sheriff, Miller

County, Arkansas; NURSE TERRY

PORTER; and JEFF BLACK, Warden

Miller County Correctional Center DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the court for decision is the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49).

To assist plaintiff in responding to the summary judgment motion, a questionnaire was

propounded to the plaintiff (Doc. 54). Plaintiff’s response to the questionnaire was filed as his

response to the summary judgment motion (Doc. 55). 

BACKGROUND

Phil Otis Cross was booked into the Miller County Detention Center (MCDC) on June

18, 2004. Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 55) (hereinafter Resp.) at ¶ 1. He was being held on

pending criminal charges. Id. at ¶ 2. His probation was revoked six months later. Id. at ¶ 3(A).

He remained incarcerated at the MCDC until March of 2005. Id. 

1

At all times relevant to this case, Terry Porter was employed as the jail nurse for the

MCDC. Resp. at ¶ 4; Defendants’ Exhibit (hereinafter Defts’ Ex.) C at ¶ 1. To see the jail nurse

at the MCDC, inmates are required to submit written requests or sick call slips. Resp. at ¶ 7.

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

On June 25, 2004, Cross was seen by Nurse Porter for the first time. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 2.

Cross told Nurse Porter that he had seizures. Id. Cross told Nurse Porter that he had been going

to the emergency room to obtain his medication and that he had been out of medication for about

two weeks. Resp. at ¶ 6; Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 3. 

Cross did not bring his medication with him to the jail. Resp. at ¶ 8. Cross indicates he

did not know he was going to be arrested. Id. Further, Cross states the tension of being arrested

caused him to have more frequent seizures. Id.

According to Cross, it took him thirty days to get any medication from Nurse Porter.

Resp. at ¶ 5. Moreover, he states inmates had to put in at least three sick call requests before

Nurse Porter thought you were serious enough to warrant a visit. Id. at ¶¶ 5 & 7.

On June 25, 2004, Cross signed a release for St. Michael’s Hospital and was placed in

a holding cell to be monitored until Nurse Porter could verify the medications he stated he was

on for possible seizures. Resp. at ¶ 9; Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 3. Officers were instructed to monitor

Cross for possible seizure activity and notify the nurse in the event of such activity. Defts’ Ex.

C at ¶ 4.

On June 25, 2004, the MCDC received Cross’ medical records from St. Michael’s

Hospital for 2001, the last time he had been seen there. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 4. No medication for

seizures had been prescribed. Id. The records indicated Cross’ CT (computerized tomography)

and ECG (electroencephalogram) were within normal limits. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 4. The discharge

summary indicated Cross was to stay away from drugs and ETOH (ethanol). Id. None of the

information received indicated seizure medication was prescribed. Id.

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

On June 29, 2004, Nurse Porter told Cross that the information they received had not

shown he was taking seizure medication. Defts’ Ex. D; Resp. at ¶ 13. She stated that if and

when a bottom bunk became open Cross could take it. Id. Otherwise she stated the best place

for Cross was to stay on the floor since he claimed to have seizures. Id. She stated that Cross

would only be monitored unless he could produce some information verifying that he had been

on medication. Id. She stated he could have Tylenol or Ibuprofen for pain. Id.

On July 1, 2004, Cross submitted a sick call request to Nurse Porter. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶

5. He stated that she had not done anything to obtain his medical records. Id. Cross stated that

if he could go to Wadley Hospital and Albertsons, he would be able to get his medication. Id.

Nurse Porter had Cross complete a release of records and provide her with the phone number of

the Albertsons where he stated he had his medication filled. Resp. at ¶ 15.

Nurse Porter contacted Albertsons and they told Nurse Porter they had not filled any

prescriptions for Cross since January 10, 2003. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 5. Albertsons advised Nurse

Porter that Cross had never filled a prescription for seizure medication there. Id. 

Cross maintains the problem is not whether he had seizures before he got to the MCDC.

Resp. at ¶ 10 & ¶ 13. Instead, he contends the issue is whether he got proper medical care while

he was in the MCDC. Id. He maintains Nurse Porter didn’t even refer him to the jail doctor, Dr.

Stringfellow. Id. at ¶ 16. If the MCDC could not provide him with proper treatment, Cross

maintains he should have been sent where he could get treatment. Id. at ¶ 14. 

On July 13, 2004, Cross was seen by Dr. Stringfellow and he chose to put Cross on

Dilantin 100 mg., three times a day. Resp. at ¶ 17. Dr. Stringfellow also prescribed Cross

Naprosyn, 500 mg., twice a day, for arthritis pain. Id. 

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

According to Cross, Dr. Stringfellow was very cooperative and nice. Resp. at ¶ 17.

Cross indicates Dr. Stringfellow remembered Cross from a previous visit when Cross needed

medication. Id.

On August 17, 2004, Cross was sent to Wadley Hospital by the sergeant on duty. Defts’

Ex. C at ¶ 7. He was diagnosed with sinusitis and given a prescription for Amoxicillin, an

antibiotic. Id. 

On October 4, 2004, Cross was observed having a seizure that lasted approximately five

minutes. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 8. As a result of the seizure, he suffered a small cut on his tongue but

had no other injuries. Id. 

Dr. Stringfellow was contacted for permission to draw blood immediately to determine

the Dilantin level in Cross’ blood. Resp. at ¶ 20. The lab report was received that same day

showing the Dilantin level was low. Id. at ¶ 21. Dr. Stringfellow gave orders for Cross to be

given Dilantin 300 mg., twice on that day, and then to start Dilantin 200 mg., twice a day. Id.

Cross’ Dilantin level was to be re-checked in one week. Id.

On October 8, 2004, Cross was seen by Dr. Stringfellow. Resp. at ¶ 22. He was

complaining of flu-like symptoms. Id. Dr. Stringfellow prescribed Amoxicillin for ten days and

instructed Cross to increase his fluids. Id. 

On October 16, 2004, Cross complained of spicy foods making him sick. Defts’ Ex. C

at ¶ 12. A dietary change was made requesting that Cross be served a peanut butter tray when

spicy foods were served. Id.

On October 20, 2004, Cross’ blood was drawn to check his Dilantin level. Resp. at ¶ 24.

It was 4.1 which is low. Id. On October 26, 2004, Dr. Stringfellow ordered an increase of

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Nothing in the record indicates what “CTM’s” are. 

2

-5-

Cross’ Dilantin to 200 mg. each morning and 300 mg. each night with the level in his blood to

be re-checked in a week. Id. at ¶ 25.

On October 29, 2004, Cross was seen by Nurse Porter complaining of cold symptoms.

Nurse Porter ordered “CTM’s ” one to three times a day as well as Tylenol one to three times a 2

day. Resp. at ¶ 26. Cross was instructed to return if the symptoms did not resolve. Id. Cross

states by the time he was treated Nurse Porter had “enough time to realize” he was really sick.

Id. He maintains it took three sick call request forms before you even heard from her. Id.

On October 29, 2004, Cross complained that he was having seizures and nothing was

being done about it. Resp. at ¶ 28. He stated he was not getting his medication and was not

being cared for properly. Id. Cross states that during one period of time, while he was in the

general population with other inmates, Nurse Porter would not give him medication. Id.

Moreover, Cross asserts there was a period of over thirty days, before Dr. Stringfellow saw

Cross, that Dr. Stringfellow was unaware Cross was in the MCDC. Id. 

According to defendants, Cross was moved to a holding cell so that he could be

monitored on a closer basis. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 16. According to Cross, he was moved to the

holding cell because Nurse Porter got tired ofthe other inmates pushing the intercom when Cross

would have a seizure. Resp. at ¶ 29. Cross maintains he was not observed more closely, did not

receive his medication on time, and was frequently told by an officer that he would be right back

and then Cross would never see the officer again. Id.

On November 1, 2004, Nurse Porter noted that the officers had reported no seizure

activity since Cross had been moved to the holding cell. Defts’ Ex. E. Cross maintains Nurse

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

Porter would not know if he was having a seizure in the holding cell because there were no

inmates to push the intercom button if he had a seizure. Resp. at ¶ 30.

On November 16, 2004, Nurse Porter received a request from Cross asking that his blood

sugar be tested. Resp. at ¶ 31. It was 86 which is within normal limits. Id. At the time, Cross

was complaining of night sweats, coughing, and fatigue. Id. Cross was given a tuberculosis

(TB) skin test. Id.

On November 18, 2004, Cross’ TB skin test was checked and it showed 20 mm. Resp.

at ¶ 32. A telephone order was received from Dr. Stringfellow for a chest x-ray. Id. 

On or about the weekend of December 20, 2004, during a shake down of the pods, in

excess of 60 Dilantin pills were found in Cross’ possession. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 19. Officers

confiscated the medication. Id. 

Cross indicates he does not know how many pills were seized from him. Resp. at ¶ 33.

Cross states Nurse Porter would not give him seizure medication so the other inmates started to

give him some of theirs. Id.

Dr. Stringfellow was notified. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 19. As a result of the medication being

found in Cross’ possession, when he was given his medication he was made to open his mouth

and lift his tongue after he took the medication to make sure he swallowed it. Resp. at ¶ 35.

On December 31, 2004, Dr. Stringfellow saw Cross regarding his TB skin test. Defts’

Ex. C at ¶ 20. Through conversation with Cross, it was determined that he had tested positive

sometime in the 1970's and had taken medication. Id. Dr. Stringfellow did not recommend any

type of medication. Id. 

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

On January 17, 2005, Nurse Porter received a sick call from Cross requesting medication

for hemorrhoids. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 21. Hemorrhoid cream was given to Cross on January 18,

2005. Id.

On January 21, 2005, Cross complained of an upset stomach and was given Pepto Bismol

and monitored. Resp. at ¶ 38. On January 24, 2005, Cross complained of a toothache and stated

he had a seizure and bit his tongue and broke his tooth. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 23. He was given

Ibuprofen three times a day and, in between, Naprosyn for the toothache. Id. He was told an

appointment would be made with a dentist. Id. No antibiotic was given as it did not appear there

was any infection. Id. Officers stated that Cross had not had a seizure during their shifts over the

weekend. Id. at ¶ 23.

Cross indicates he had to submit three or four sick call slips before Nurse Porter saw him.

Resp. at ¶ 39. He indicates he finally had the tooth pulled the day before he was moved to the

Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Id.

On January 27, 2005, Cross “threw a fit” because he had not gone to a dentist. Defts’ Ex.

C at ¶ 24. He was advised that it took time to schedule inmates for appointments. Id. He was

given some more Ibuprofen and some CMT’s because he also complained his sinuses were

bothering him. Id. 

On February 24, 2005, Nurse Porter received a sick call slip from Cross dated February

20th complaining of a seizure and a toothache. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 25. No seizures had been

observed by the officers. Id. Cross was given Ibuprofen for the toothache. Id. Cross was

informed that a dental appointment had been scheduled within the next couple of weeks. Id. 

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

According to Cross, the officers never observe seizures. Resp. at ¶ 42. Instead, Cross

states another inmate usually calls an officer when you are unconscious. Id. 

On March 9, 2005, Cross was seen by Dr. Curry for dental work. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 26.

Dental work was done and Cross was placed on an antibiotic and Ibuprofen. Id. Shortly after

seeing the dentist, Cross was transferred to the ADC. Resp. at ¶ 44. 

For a period of time while he was at the MCDC, Cross was placed in the medical pod.

Defts’ Ex. F at ¶ 3. The medical pod is strictly for inmates who are on medication. Id. 

Cross maintains he was placed in this pod as punishment for having seizures. Resp. at ¶

45. While in this pod, Cross maintains he could not be observed while having a seizure. Id.

Cross states they did not have to bother with him when he was there. Id. He indicates jailers

would not see what he wanted or would say they would be right back and not come back. Id. 

Jeff Black was the warden of the MCDC during Cross’ incarceration there. Resp. at ¶ 46.

According to Black, after Cross complained that he was not receiving his medication as required

and was being threatened, he was moved to a holding cell so that he could be monitored. Defts’

Ex. F at ¶ 4. Cross states he was never threatened. Resp. at ¶ 47. He indicates other inmates

helped him when he was sick. Id. Cross does state officers frequently threatened you if they had

to get “off of their behinds” to see what you wanted. Id. 

The holding cell was approximately eight foot by ten foot in size. Resp. at ¶ 50. After one

week, Cross had a mat to sleep on. Id. There was a toilet in the cell. Id. He received three meals

a day. Id. For four months, Cross indicates he was not allowed out of the cell. Id. He could

receive legal and personal mail. Id. He did not have access to a day-room, telephone, television,

books, magazines, or radio. Id. He could exercise in the cell if he had been physically able. Id.

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

Although Cross states there were times when he did not have access to his medication for two or

three days in a row, id., in response to another question he indicates he received his medication

after he was taken to see Dr. Stringfellow on July 13, 2004, resp. at ¶ 52. 

Cross spent the last four months at the MCDC from December of 2004 through March of

2005 assigned to the holding cell. Resp. at ¶ 51. All decisions regarding Cross’ medical care

were made by Nurse Porter or Dr. Stringfellow. Resp. at ¶ 53. However, Cross states Nurse

Porter decided if she wanted Dr. Stringfellow’s opinion. Id.

Cross did not personally speak to Sheriff Phillips regarding Cross’ need for medical care.

Resp. at ¶ 54. However, Cross maintains he wrote three or four requests to see Sheriff Phillips.

Id. Cross was told that Sheriff Phillips chooses not to see anyone. Id. Cross believes Sheriff

Phillips exhibited deliberate indifference to Cross’ medical needs by not caring enough about his

medical needs to respond to his requests. Id. 

After Cross came back from a trip to the hospital, he indicates Jeff Black came to the

holding cell and told Cross that unless Black saw some blood Cross would not be going to the

hospital again. Resp. at ¶ 55. Cross states Black did not believe there was anything wrong with

Cross. Id.

The decision to place Cross in the holding cell was made by Nurse Porter. Resp. at ¶ 57.

Cross maintains she made this decision to punish him for having seizures and to get him to a place

where she didn’t have to be bothered with him. Id. While he was in the general population, Cross

states the other inmates could use the intercom button to call Nurse Porter when he was

unconscious. Id. 

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986), the record "show[s] that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a

sufficient showing, the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by

affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists." National Bank of

Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "They must show there is sufficient

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). "A case

founded on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment."

Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). 

DISCUSSION

As noted above, Cross was incarcerated at the MCDC from June 18, 2004,until March of

2005. Resp. at ¶ 1 & ¶ 3(A). According to Cross, for the first six months he was a pretrial

detainee. Resp. at ¶ 2 & ¶ 3(B). Although the denial of medical care claims brought by pretrial

detainees are more properly analyzed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

than the Eighth Amendment, Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 456-457 (8th Cir. 2004), the

Eighth Circuit has held that deliberate indifference is the “appropriate standard of culpability for

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-11-

all claims that prison officials failed to provide pretrial detainees with adequate . . . medical care,”

Butler v. Fletcher, 465 F.3d 340, 344 (8th Cir. 2006).

“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently

harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976). The deliberate indifference standard

includes "both an objective and a subjective component: 'The [plaintiff] must demonstrate (1)

that [he] suffered [from] objectively serious medical needs and (2) that the prison officials

actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs.'" Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094,

1096 (8th Cir. 2000)(quoting Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997)).

Additionally, "'[t]he prisoner must show more than negligence, more even than gross negligence,

and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional

violation.'" Jolly, 205 F.3d at 1096 (quoting Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th

Cir.1995)). See also Gregoire v. Class, 236 F.3d 413, 417 (8th Cir. 2000)("To establish a

constitutional violation, it is not enough that a reasonable official should have known of the risk,

a plaintiff must establish that the official in question did in fact know of the risk.").

"Because society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care,

deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation only if those

needs are 'serious.'" Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S. Ct. 995, 1000, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156

(1992). "A medical need is serious if it is obvious to the layperson or supported by medical

evidence." Moore v. Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (internal

quotation and citation omitted).

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-12-

"[T]he failure to treat a medical condition does not constitute punishment within the

meaning of the Eighth Amendment unless prison officials knew that the condition created an

excessive risk to the inmate's health and then failed to act on that knowledge." Long v. Nix, 86

F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). In Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth

Circuit said:

As long as this threshold is not crossed, inmates have no constitutional right to

receive a particular or requested course of treatment, and prison doctors remain

free to exercise their independent medical judgment. Deliberate indifference may

be demonstrated by prison guards who intentionally deny or delay access to

medical care or intentionally interfere with prescribed treatment, or by prison

doctors who fail to respond to prisoner's serious medical needs. See Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S. Ct. 285, 290, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976). Mere

negligence or medical malpractice, however, are insufficient to rise to a

constitutional violation. Id. at 106, 97 S. Ct. at 292.

Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1239. See also Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2001). 

In this case, Cross’ claim is largely premised on the actions or inactions of Nurse Porter.

Cross concedes that once he was seen by Dr. Stringfellow on July 13, 2004, Cross was prescribed

seizure medication. Resp. at ¶ 17 & ¶ 52. Although Cross states there were times Nurse Porter

would not give him his medication, Cross is referring to the initial period of incarceration at the

MCDC prior to his first visit to Dr. Stringfellow. See e.g., Resp. at ¶ 5, ¶ 7, ¶ 16, ¶ 28. Cross

believes Nurse Porter should have immediately scheduled him to see Dr. Stringfellow or

immediately prescribed him seizure medication. Id.

The records establish Nurse Porter attempted to verify the fact that Cross was on some

type of seizure medication. When Cross indicated he had been going to the emergency room to

obtain his medication,she obtained a medical release from him and obtained the hospital records.

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-13-

Resp. at ¶ 6, ¶ 9, ¶ 11; Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 4. When the hospital records did nothing to verify that

he was taking seizure medication, Nurse Porter notified Cross that he would only be monitored

unless he could produce some information verifying that he had been on medication. Resp. at ¶

13; Defts’ Ex. D. 

On July 1, 2004, Cross then advised Nurse Porter that if he could go to Wadley Hospital

or Albertsons he could get his medications. Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 5. Nurse Porter obtained a release

of records from Cross and contacted Albertsons. Resp. at ¶ 14; Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 5. Albertsons

advised Nurse Porter that Cross had never filled any prescriptions for seizure medications there.

Defts’ Ex. C at ¶ 16. 

Thereafter, on July 13, 2004, Cross was seen by Dr. Stringfellow and prescribed Dilantin.

Resp. at ¶ 17. Cross’ Dilantin level was checked on October 4, 2004, and his medication

adjusted. Resp. at ¶ 20 & ¶ 21. On October 20, 2004, Cross’ Dilantin level was checked again

and on October 26th his medication was adjusted. Resp. at ¶ 24 & ¶ 26.

It is obvious from the undisputed facts that Cross was not denied medical attention. Cross

received medical attention on multiple occasions and his requests for medical treatment were

evaluated by medical personnel. Nurse Porter attempted to verify that Cross has some type of

seizure disorder or had been prescribed seizure medication. She followed-up with each medical

source provided her by Cross. None of the medical sources did anything to establish that he had

been taking any type of seizure medication when he became incarcerated at the MCDC. Cross

brought no medication with him, did not provide any verifiable information regarding the

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-14-

existence of a seizure disorder, and had not, up to that time, been observed having any seizures

by MCDC personnel. 

Cross received all medical care ordered by the medical personnel who treated him. While

Cross does not believe the treatment he received was adequate or that he was prescribed seizure

medication quickly enough, a difference of opinion between Cross and the medical personnel who

treated him regarding his treatment or the necessity of his being prescribed certain medication

does not give rise to a § 1983 claim. Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000)(mere

disagreement with the course of medical treatment is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment

claim). Moreover, Cross has presented no evidence that the delayin his receiving the prescription

medication from June 18, 2004, until it was prescribed by Dr. Stringfellow on July 13, 2004, had

any detrimental impact on his health. Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500, 502 (8th Cir.

1997)(inmate who complains about delay in medical treatment must present verifying medical

evidence of detrimental effect of delay). In fact, Cross was not taking the medication prior to his

incarceration on a daily basis. Resp. at ¶ 6. (was out of medication for two weeks prior to his

incarceration). We find there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether Nurse Porter

was deliberately indifferent to Cross’ serious medical needs. 

With respect to Sheriff Phillips and Jeff Black, “[l]iability under section 1983 requires a

causal link to, and direct responsibility for, the deprivation of rights.” Madewell v. Roberts, 909

F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir. 1990). In this case, there is no indication that either Sheriff Phillips or

Jeff Black made any decisions regarding Cross’ medical care or the medication he should be

prescribed. Instead, all treatment decisions, including the decision to move Cross to the holding

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-15-

cell for observation, were made by Nurse Porter and/or Dr. Stringfellow. See alsoKeeper v. King,

130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997)(no evidence the defendants were medical personnel or were

personally involved in making medical decisions about the plaintiff’s treatment); Boyd v. Knox,

47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995)(section 1983 liability requires personal involvement, or

allegation that supervisor had knowledge of unconstitutional conduct and turned blind eye to it).

 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49) will be

granted. A separate order in accordance with this opinion will be entered.

DATED this 17th day of January, 2007.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04009-JLH Document 56 Filed 01/17/07 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: <pageID>