Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00074/USCOURTS-ared-2_15-cv-00074-3/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

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN T. MOSS, PLAINTIFF

ADC #79311

v. 2:15CV00074-JM-JTK

ROY GRIFFEN et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James

M. Moody, 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 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 hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:

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

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing

is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District

1

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 11
Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other nontestimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.

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

evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

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

Plaintiff John Moss is a state inmate incarcerated at the Ouachita River Unit of the Arkansas

Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. 

He asks for monetary and injunctive relief from Defendants Dr. Brett Butler and Nurse Yolanda

Key. Defendant Griffen was dismissed on August 10, 2015 (Doc. No. 41).

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in

Support and Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 56-58). Plaintiff responded to the Motion, claiming he

was denied access to review his medical records (Doc. No. 60), and Defendants replied (Doc. No.

62). By Order dated March 8, 2016, this Court delayed ruling on the Motion, and directed that

Plaintiff be provided additional time in which to review his medical records, and that Plaintiff file

his Response by April 25, 2016 (Doc. No. 63). On April 29, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s

Motion for Contempt, and directed him to respond to the Motion within fifteen days of the date of

the Order (Doc. No. 69). Plaintiff filed a Response to the Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. No.

2

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 11
74), Defendants filed a Reply and Supplement (Doc. No. 75, 77), and Plaintiff filed a Return to

Reply and a Response to the Supplement (Doc. Nos. 76, 78).

II. Complaint

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to provide him needed surgery for

a hernia (Doc. No. 2, p. 11). He alleged that Defendant Butler never examined him and merely

ordered a hernia belt for Plaintiff which he could not wear because of the pain he suffered. (Id.)

Defendant Key “contradicted” herself when responding to Plaintiff’s grievance, and stated that

Plaintiff should file additional sick call requests for further treatment. (Id.) He alleged that

Defendants knew he was in pain and knew that a hernia does not heal on its own. (Id.) Finally, he

stated that their deliberate indifference caused him pain and suffering. (Id.) 

III. Summary Judgment Motion

Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that

there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997). “The moving party bears

the initial burden of identifying ‘those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.’” Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 F.3d

1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (other

citations omitted)). “Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot

simply rest on mere denials or allegations in the pleadings; rather, the non-movant ‘must set forth

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 1135. Although the facts are

viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, “in order to defeat a motion for summary

3

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 11
judgment, the non-movant cannot simply create a factual dispute; rather, there must be a genuine

dispute over those facts that could actually affect the outcome of the lawsuit.” Id.

A. Defendants’ Motion

Defendants state that Plaintiff fails to provide evidence to support his claim that they acted

with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. In support, they provide copies of

Plaintiff’s medical records, together with an affidavit from Dr. Jeffrey Stieve, Regional Medical

Director for Correct Care Solutions, LLC, the medical care provider for the ADC (Doc. Nos. 58-1,

58-4).

According to Plaintiff’s medical records, he was first diagnosed with an inguinal hernia by

Dr. Obi (a non-party) on February 14, 2014, when he was examined for complaints of a rash and

swelling in his right groin (Doc. No. 58-1, p. 1). In June, 2014, Plaintiff was examined at the

Arkansas Heart Hospital Clinic for a check-up due to various heart issues (Id., pp. 2-4). He

complained about painful swelling in the right side of his groin area on July 6, 2014, and was

examined the next day by a nurse, who noted that an ultrasound completed on April 16, 2014 ruled

out a hernia. (Id., p. 6) The nurse referred Plaintiff to a provider for treatment and advised him to

return to the infirmary if his symptoms increased. (Id.) An Advance Practice Nurse (APN), Aric

Simmons (non-party), examined Plaintiff on July 8, 2014, noting a tender palpable fist-sized mass

which was negative on the ultrasound. (Id., p. 7) He then ordered a consult for a CT scan of

Plaintiff’s abdomen and pelvis. (Id., pp. 7-8) 

Plaintiff filed a sick call form on July 24, 2014, complaining of increasing pain and swelling. 

(Id., p. 9) Lab tests were conducted on July 22, 2014, and Plaintiff was seen by a nurse for groin

pain on July 27, 2014. (Id., p. 10) Plaintiff filed another sick call request on August 1, 2014, and

4

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 11
was seen by Dr. Campbell (non-party) on August 6, 2014. (Id., pp. 11-12) At that time, the doctor

noted a palpable mass to the right inguinal area, and that a pelvic CT scan was pending. (Id., p. 12) 

She prescribed Plaintiff Tramadal for pain. (Id.) A CT scan was conducted on August 27, 2014, at

the Forrest City Medical Center, which revealed numerous medical conditions, including a small

right inguinal hernia. (Id., pp. 14-15) Upon his return to the Unit following the test, Plaintiff

indicated no complaints or pain at that time. (Id., p. 16) 

Defendant Dr. Butler first saw Plaintiff on September 23, 2014, noting a right inguinal

hernia, pseudocyst of the pancreas, contusion on his right shoulder and redness and swelling of the

third digit of Plaintiff’s left hand. (Id., p. 17) He ordered an x-ray of Plaintiff’s hand, continued the

pain medication, and ordered an abdominal truss for support. (Id.) The hernia belt was provided

to Plaintiff on September 26, 2014. (Id., pp. 17, 22) 

Plaintiff was then hospitalized at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS)

hospital from October 24, 2014, to October 28, 2014, for exacerbation of congestive heart failure. 

(Id., pp. 23-31) He also was hospitalized at UAMS from December 4, 2014, until December 9,

2014, for gastrointestinal bleeding and congestive heart failure. (Id., pp. 35-47) During that time,

he underwent an EGD which showed three small columns of esophageal varices, and a colonoscopy, 

which produced a normal result. (Id., p. 35) Plaintiff was seen at the Arkansas Heart Hospital

Clinic on December 12, 2014 for a followup. (Id., pp. 49-54)

Plaintiff’s medications were renewed on January 13, 2015 (Id., pp. 57-59). Plaintiff was

hospitalized on February 21, 2015 at Forrest City Medical Center for a suspected gastrointestinal

bleed, and was transferred to St. Vincent’s Infirmary Medical Center in Little Rock (Id., pp. 63-72). 

He again was hospitalized at Forrest City Medical Center on July 29, 2015, and assessed as having

5

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 5 of 11
anemia of chronic disease, congestive heart failure, a right inguinal hernia, hyponatremia (low blood

sodium) and chronic renal failure. (Doc. No. 58-2, pp. 3-12) He was transferred to the Ouachita

River Correctional Unit Hospital on August 18, 2015, where he was treated by Dr. Gregory

McKinney (non-party), who noted a fairly large inguinal hernia that was reducible. (Id., pp. 21-26,

29)

Plaintiff saw a nurse on September 15, 2015, who noted that his large right inguinal hernia

caused difficulty walking and uncontrolled pain. (Id., p. 41) Dr. Butler examined him on September

16, 2015, and submitted a consultation request that Plaintiff be examined by a general surgeon for

possible repair of his hernia. (Id., pp. 42-43) Following an examination by a UAMS cardiologist

on October 8, 2015, Plaintiff underwent surgery on October 23, 2015 for repair of his right inguinal

hernia by Dr. J. K. Buchman (non-party) (Id., pp. 45-46, 52-58). 

Dr. Stieve states in his affidavit that Plaintiff suffers from the following medical conditions: 

hepatitis C, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, syncope, coronary artery disease, post

coronary artery bypass graft, palpitations with atrial fibrillation and flutter, heart valve replacement,

cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure, and hyperthyroidism. (Doc. No. 58-4, p. 4) In his

opinion, these various conditions dictated conservative care and medical monitoring of Plaintiff’s

conditions, together with a concern that the congestive heart failure could impact his ability to

recover from anesthesia. (Id.) Dr. Stieve also noted that from the time of diagnosis of the hernia

on February 14, 2014, until his surgery on October 22, 2015, he was provided access to a

wheelchair, was treated with pain medications, and was permitted to lie in bed whenever needed. 

(Id.) Based on a review of the medical records, Dr. Stieve concluded that the medical care provided

to Plaintiff was appropriate. (Id.)

6

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 6 of 11
Based on the medical records and Dr. Stieve’s affidavit, Defendants state Plaintiff cannot

show that they acted with deliberate indifference in treating his hernia condition, and that his

complaints are based on disagreements over the type of treatment he received, which does not

support a constitutional claim. In addition, his complaints about Defendant Key’s responses to his

grievances do not state a constitutional claim for relief.

B. Plaintiff’s Response

Plaintiff states that although Dr. Stieve refers to his numerous medical conditions as reasons

for delaying hernia surgery, Defendants cannot point to any medical record which stated that those

conditions caused a concern about the appropriateness of surgery (and the use of anesthesia) for his

hernia. In addition, he notes that his medical records show that he repeatedly complained about his

hernia pain from the time of diagnosis until his surgery, and that Butler knew of his pain. Plaintiff

also contends that the failure to provide surgery was the cause of the sepsis he suffered in August,

2015, and points to medical records from his hospitalization which connect the hernia to abdominal

pain and resulting complications. He complains that Defendant Butler did not examine him for

eleven months, and ignored the August, 2015 reports from the Forrest City Medical Center doctors

which connected the hernia to his abdominal pain and sepsis. He also complains that Defendant Key

submitted false information when responding to his grievance, because although he was taking

Tramadal, it was not initially prescribed for his hernia condition. In addition, he claims she lied

when she stated that he would not wear the hernia belt, when in actuality, he could not wear it. 

C. Eighth Amendment

In order to support a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation, Plaintiff must prove that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

7

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 7 of 11
825, 834 (1994). However, even negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not

constitute a claim of deliberate indifference. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). 

Rather, the “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,” Estate

of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995). See also Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d

500, 502 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that a mere disagreement with a course of medical treatment is

insufficient to state a claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment). Furthermore, prison physicians

are entitled to exercise their medical judgment, and “do not violate the Eighth Amendment when,

in the exercise of their professional judgment, they refuse to implement a prisoner’s requested course

of treatment.” Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). In addition, an inmate who

complains that a delay in medical treatment constitutes a constitutional violation must provide

“verifying medical evidence” in the record to establish the detrimental effect of the delay, in order

to succeed on his claim. Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Cir. 1995) (overruled in part

on other grounds). Finally, “[i]n 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 [he] did not feel [he] received adequate treatment.” Dulany,

supra, 132 F.3d at 1240.

D. Analysis

1) Defendant Key

Initially, the Court agrees with Defendant Key that Plaintiff’s allegations against her fail to

state a claim for constitutional relief. Defendant Key responded to Plaintiff’s January 15, 2015

grievance in which he complained about his hernia pain, stating that Plaintiff should use the sick call

8

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 8 of 11
process for re-evaluation of his hernia. (Doc. No. 2, pp. 13-16) Plaintiff complains about this

response, stating that it caused a delay in his medical care. He also stated in his deposition that on

one occasion she stated that he would not wear the hernia belt, when in fact he told her he could not

wear it. (Doc. No. 58-5, p. 17) The Court finds that these allegations do not support a claim of

deliberate indifference against Defendant Key. Plaintiff does not deny that he was provided the

hernia belt or the Tramadal for pain. In addition, a “[prison] grievance procedure is a procedural

right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates....it does not give rise to a

protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth

amendment.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (quoting Azeez v. DeRobertis,

568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill. 1982)). Plaintiff “does not have a federal claim regarding how his

grievances were processed, investigated, or responded to, even if they were not done by the

appropriate personnel or in accord with the policies.” Edgar v. Crawford, No. 08-4279-CV-C-SOW,

2009 WL 3835265, *3 (W.D.Mo. 2009). Therefore, the Court finds as a matter of law that

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Key should be dismissed.

2) Defendant Butler

Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Butler on two occasions, September 23, 2014, and 

September 16, 2015. On the first visit, Butler prescribed the abdominal truss and pain medication,

and treated Plaintiff for other medical issues. And, after the second visit, Dr. Butler completed a

consult request for surgery, which Plaintiff received a little over a month later. Between those two

dates, Plaintiff was hospitalized on several occasions for other medical issues, mostly involving

congestive heart failure. The Court recognizes that some notations from his August, 2015 stay at

the Forrest City Medical Center link his hernia to some of his medical issues. On August 1, 2015, 

9

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 9 of 11
a provider (Orji Christian U)at the Forrest City Medical Center wrote that Plaintiff had a “right-sided

inguinal hernia which appears more direct and indirect noted. This appears irreducible, with bulging

scrotum.” (Doc. No. 77-1, p. 6) The provider also wrote, “I think patient is problem is more

connected to the inguinal hernia,” and “I will get a surgical consult for review of possible

incarcerated right inguinal hernia.” (Id., p. 7) The next day, however, Dr. Iskander wrote that

Plaintiff has had a right inguinal hernia for two years and “is not a candidate for surgery.” (Id., p.

8) This was noted on August 2, 2016 by provider Orji, who wrote that Plaintiff’s sepsis “most likely

is related to the abdominal problem. Resolving though....I think pt.s symptoms are connected to the

R. Inguinal hernia. I think patient may be having some ... herniation, w/complicated

strangulations/incarceration. This, in my opinion, it is likely triggering the abdominal pain. Will

discuss w/surg.” (Id., p. 9)

These documents show a disagreement among the providers at Forrest City over the cause

of some of Plaintiff’s medical issues. Following Plaintiff’s hospitalization there, he was sent to

UAMS, and then to the Ouachita River Correctional Unit Hospital. (Doc. No. 58-2, p. 13) Plaintiff

was treated there by several medical providers (and not Defendant Butler), who appeared concerned

with his heart issues. (Id., pp. 15-40) There is no evidence that Dr. Butler treated him during that

time or was notified of his situation. At some point, however, Plaintiff was transferred from

Ouachita to the East Arkansas Regional Unit, because on September 15, 2015, a nurse noted that

Plaintiff would be seen the next day by Dr. Butler regarding his return from the hospital and his

hernia. (Doc. No. 58-2, p. 41) After Plaintiff’s examination by Butler, Butler immediately completed

a consult request for possible hernia surgery, which was performed on October 22, 2015 (Id., pp. 43,

52-58) Plaintiff provides no evidence that Dr. Butler was solely responsible for his medical care and

10

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 10 of 11
medically-related decisions from September 23, 2014, and the date of his surgery, or that he acted

with deliberate indifference by not arranging for surgery until the September, 2015 visit. Plaintiff

was seen by numerous medical professionals during that time period, and at no time prior to the

August, 2015 hospitalization, did any medical professional find that his hernia condition necessitated

surgery. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaints with Dr. Butler amount to a

disagreement over the type of treatment he provided, which does not support a constitutional claim. 

See Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d at 765; Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d at 502.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 56) be GRANTED.

2) Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants be DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

Case 2:15-cv-00074-JM Document 79 Filed 06/09/16 Page 11 of 11