Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00076/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00076-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

RUBBY JAMES GRAY PLAINTIFF

 

v. 3:15CV00076-DPM-JJV

DALTON SHANNON, Officer,

Jonesboro Police Department; et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge D. P.

Marshall Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is

to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. 

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

District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely

objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or

additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or

Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was

not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form

1

Case 3:15-cv-00076-DPM Document 25 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 5
of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Rubby James Gray (“Plaintiff”) brought this section 1983 action alleging Defendants Arthur

Bentley and Chastity Jackson1,2 were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. 

Specifically, he alleges: (1) Defendants provided him with Ibuprofen which caused him to suffer an

allergic reaction; (2) he did not receive aspirin for nine days in March 2015; and (3) he did not

receive a timely cardiology stress test in March 2015. (Doc. No. 1 at 4; Doc. No. 6 at 1-2.)

Defendants Bentley and Jackson have motioned for summary judgment on all claims against them.

(Doc. No. 22.) Plaintiff has not responded and the deadline for doing so has passed.

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper “if

the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to anymaterial fact and that the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

1Five other defendants named to this action were previously dismissed. (Doc. No. 15.)

2The docket lists these Defendants as “Chasity Jackson” and “Art Bentley.” I will

recommend the Clerk alter the docket to reflect their proper names. 

2

Case 3:15-cv-00076-DPM Document 25 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 5
321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in

a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th

Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the

existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825

(8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party’s allegations must be supported by sufficient probative

evidence that would permit a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or

fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a

reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the

outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). 

Disputes that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude summary

judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants argue the medical evidence offered in support of their Motion establishes they

were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. After reviewing that evidence

and Defendants’ pleadings, I agree.

A. Ibuprofen

Plaintiff alleges Defendants acted with deliberate indifference when they prescribed him

Ibuprofen, a medication to which he is allergic. (Doc. No. 1 at 4. ) This claim fails against 

Defendant Jackson because it is undisputed she is a nurse and, as such, not authorized to prescribe

medication. I also recommend this claim be dismissed with respect to Defendant Bentley. The

record indicates Ibuprofen was first prescribed on March 13, 2015, and promptly replaced with

Tylenol on March 14, 2015, when it was determined Plaintiff was allergic to it. (Doc. No. 22-2 at

15, 17.) Ibuprofen was listed among Plaintiff’s allergies on his March 5, 2015, intake sheet (Id. at

3

Case 3:15-cv-00076-DPM Document 25 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 5
3) and it may be Defendant Bentley was negligent in failing to account for this. Nevertheless, the

error’s prompt correction precludes a finding that Bentley knew of but deliberately disregarded

Plaintiff’s medical needs. See Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that

claimant must establish that defendants knew of but deliberately disregarded his serious medical

needs); see also Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that a

finding of deliberate indifference demands more than negligence and is more akin to criminal

recklessness). 

B. Lack of Aspirin

Plaintiff alleges he did not receive aspirin for nine days during March 2015. (Doc. No. 1 at

4.) Defendants persuasively argue Plaintiff has not established or even alleged that he has a serious

medical need which requires a daily dose of aspirin or that he suffered any detrimental effect when

he was without it for nine days. It is settled law that a section 1983 claim requires a claimant to

establish he suffered some injury and the defendant’s conduct actually caused that injury. See Irving

v. Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Because a § 1983 action is a type of tort claim,

general principles of tort law require that a plaintiff suffer some actual injury before he can receive

compensation.”); see also Calloway v. Miller, 147 F.3d 778, 780 (8th Cir. 1998) (“To establish a

violation of § 1981 or § 1983, the plaintiff must establish that the defendants' unconstitutional action

was the "cause in fact" of the plaintiff's injury.”). Additionally, medical records indicate Plaintiff did

not request aspirin therapy until March 16, 2015, and his request was approved almost immediately. 

(Doc. No. 22-2 at 19, 23.) 

Based on the foregoing, this claim should be dismissed against both Defendants.

C. Stress Test

Plaintiff’s last claim is that an outside physician - Dr. Martin Kosciuk - requested Plaintiff

4

Case 3:15-cv-00076-DPM Document 25 Filed 02/09/16 Page 4 of 5
receive a cardiology stress test within two days at Arkansas Cardiology, and Defendants failed to

comply with Dr. Kosciuk’s recommendation. (Doc. No. 6 at 1-2.) Defendants dispute this

contention and argue the decision to postpone the stress test until Plaintiff’s release from

incarceration was made byArkansas Cardiology staff. Plaintiff’s medical records confirm as much.

(Doc. No. 22-2 at 9.) Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to identify any specific, detrimental effect on

his health caused by postponement of the stress test. Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir.

1997) (“An inmate's failure to place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the

detrimental effect of delay in medical treatment precludes a claim of deliberate indifference to

medical needs.”). Accordingly, this claim should also be dismissed. 

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. The Clerk alter the docket to reflect that “Chasity Jackson” is “Chastity Jackson” and

“Art Bentley” is “Arthur Bentley.”

2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 22) be GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Chastity Jackson and Arthur Bentley be 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

4. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good faith. 

Dated this 9th day of February, 2016.

___________________________________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 3:15-cv-00076-DPM Document 25 Filed 02/09/16 Page 5 of 5