Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00895/USCOURTS-ared-4_18-cv-00895-1/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 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

HARLIE THACKER, PLAINTIFF 

ADC #152566 

v. 4:18-cv-00895-KGB-JJV 

SHARRON KING, 

Supervisor, Corizon; et al. DEFENDANTS 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

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

Kristine G. Baker. 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 (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 

Case 4:18-cv-00895-KGB Document 37 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 7
2 

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 

 Harlie Thacker (“Plaintiff”) is a convicted prisoner in the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas 

Department of Correction. He has filed a pro se Amended Complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983, alleging Defendant Dr. Jessica Jackson Breedlove failed to provide him with constitutionally 

adequate dental care.1 (Doc. No. 6.) 

 On August 12, 2019, Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing she is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. Nos. 27, 28, 29.) Plaintiff did not file a Response 

within fourteen days. On August 29, 2019, I entered a Recommended Disposition suggesting the 

Motion be granted and Plaintiff’s inadequate dental care claim be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 

No. 31.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and 

Objections to my Recommended Disposition. (Doc. Nos. 32-35.) On February 10, 2020, the 

Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge, found Plaintiff’s Response to be timely 

filed pursuant to the prison mail box rule, declined my August 29, 2019 Recommended 

Disposition, and referred the Motion for Summary Judgment to me for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 

 

1 The Court has previously dismissed without prejudice all other claims raised in the Amended 

Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 8, 23.) 

Case 4:18-cv-00895-KGB Document 37 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 7
3 

36.) Based on the supplemented record before me, I recommend Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s inadequate dental care claim against Defendant Dr. 

Jackson Breedlove be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

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

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or 

is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the 

record, “including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, 

interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

 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). 

Case 4:18-cv-00895-KGB Document 37 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 7
4 

III. RELEVANT DATE OF DENTAL CARE 

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged Dr. Jackson Breedlove failed to provide him 

with adequate dental care in October 2017. (Doc. No. 6 at 6.) But, in his deposition, Plaintiff 

testified his claim was limited solely to the dental care she provided on October 23, 2017. (Doc. 

No. 29-2 at 38-39.) Based on that testimony, Defendant only produced Plaintiff’s dental records 

for his October 23, 2017 exam by her and a June 13, 2019 follow-up exam by a non-party prison 

dentist. (Doc. No. 29-1.) 

 In his Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues his claim should 

not be restricted to October 23, 2017, because he did not have counsel during his deposition. (Doc. 

Nos. 32-34.) He then asks the Court to consider dental care Dr. Jackson Breedlove provided in 

December 2015, October 2016, February 2016, and January 2016. (Doc. No. 33.) But, it is well 

settled that plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to counsel in civil proceedings. See 

Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th Cir. 2018); Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 

794 (8th Cir. 2006). And, the dates of care mentioned in Plaintiff’s Response go well beyond the 

month of October 2017, which is the only date of care pled in the Amended Complaint. Finally, 

Plaintiff has not produced any medical records for those additional dates of care, and the time to 

do so has long since expired.2

 For these reasons, I conclude Plaintiff’s claim should be limited to 

the dental care Defendant provided on October 23, 2017. 

IV. FACTS 

 Plaintiff has worn removable upper and lower dentures since 1990, which was before his 

incarceration. (Doc. No. 29-2 at 11, 16.) On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff sought treatment in the 

 

2

 Discovery closed on July 11, 2019, which was a month before Defendant filed her Motion for 

Summary Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 14, 27.) 

Case 4:18-cv-00895-KGB Document 37 Filed 02/12/20 Page 4 of 7
5 

Tucker Unit infirmary for swollen gums on the right side of his mouth. (Doc. No. 29-1 at 1.) After 

examining Plaintiff, Dr. Jackson Breedlove determined he had “advanced bone loss to the alveolar 

ridge” and that his lower dentures were resting on the muscle causing his gums to become irritated, 

red, and tender. (Id.) Dr. Jackson Breedlove told Plaintiff not to wear his dentures for seven to 

ten days to let the irritation heal. (Id.) She also said to notify the dental department if his condition 

worsened or did not heal at the end of the seven to ten day resting period. (Id.) There is no 

evidence that Plaintiff did so. 

 On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff was examined by a non-party prison dentist. (Doc. No. 29-1 at 

2.) Plaintiff told the dentist he had “oral cancer that is eating away part of [my] gums.” (Id.) But, 

the dentist noted there was no diagnosis of oral cancer in Plaintiff’s dental records or “any obvious 

signs of oral cancer at this time.” (Id. at 2, 6.) The dentist concluded Plaintiff’s “hard and soft 

tissues of the oral cavity” were within normal limits and that there was heavy resorption of the 

mandibular ridge that “is a natural process that cannot be prevented.” (Id.) 

V. ANALYSIS 

The Eighth Amendment requires correctional officers to provide prisoners with needed 

dental care. Williams v. York, 891 F.3d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 2018); Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830 

(8th Cir. 2016.) To proceed to trial on that claim, Plaintiff must have evidence that: (1) he had an 

objectively serious need for dental care; and (2) Dr. Jackson Breedlove subjectively knew of, but 

deliberately disregarded, that serious medical need when she treated him on October 23, 2017. Id. 

 During his deposition, Plaintiff testified two prison nurses said he might have oral cancer 

due to the deterioration of his gums and the occasional appearance of sores in his mouth and throat. 

(Doc. No. 29-2 at 15-19.) But, the non-party dentist who examined Plaintiff on June 13, 2019, 

found no evidence of prior or current oral cancer. (Doc. No. 29-1 at 2, 6.) Importantly, Dr. 

Case 4:18-cv-00895-KGB Document 37 Filed 02/12/20 Page 5 of 7
6 

Stringfellow, who is the Regional Dental Director for the ADC, has reached the same conclusion 

in his sworn affidavit.3 (Doc. No. 29-3). Thus, there is no credible evidence in the record that 

Plaintiff had oral cancer in October 2017. In contrast, Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff had 

sore and swollen gums. Accordingly, the relevant issue is whether Defendant Dr. Jackson 

Breedlove was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s objectively serious medical need for treatment 

of sore and swollen gums on October 23, 2017. 

 Deliberate indifference, which is a higher standard than medical malpractice or gross 

negligence, “requires proof of a reckless disregard of the known risk.” Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 

543, 545 (8th Cir. 2001). There is no such evidence in the record. To the contrary, it is undisputed 

that, on October 23, 2017, Dr. Jackson Breedlove determined, in her professional medical 

judgment, Plaintiff should refrain from wearing his dentures for seven to ten days to let his swollen 

and irritated gums heal. Dr. Stringfellow concludes, in his expert opinion, those instructions were 

medically appropriate dental care. (Doc. No. 29-3.) And, Plaintiff has not produced any contrary 

medical evidence. “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 he did not feel he received adequate treatment.” Cejvanovic 

v. Ludwick, 923 F.3d 503, 508 (8th Cir. 2019); Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 

2010). 

 Plaintiff believes Dr. Jackson Breedlove should have referred him to a private specialist 

for a second opinion, ordered a new set of dentures, or taken unspecified steps to “build up” his 

gums. (Doc. Nos. 29-2 at 31-33; 32; 33.) But, prison medical providers are free to exercise their 

 

3

 Plaintiff argues the affidavit should be stricken from the record because Dr. Stringfellow did not 

examine him. (Doc. Nos. 32, 33.) Dr. Stringfellow’s opinion is based on his review of Plaintiff’s 

dental records, which is something expert witnesses are permitted to do. (Doc. No. 29-3.) 

Case 4:18-cv-00895-KGB Document 37 Filed 02/12/20 Page 6 of 7
7 

independent professional judgment, and Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the course of care he 

received is insufficient to sustain a constitutional violation. Barr v. Pearson, 909 F.3d 919, 921-

22 (8th Cir. 2019); Reid v. Griffin, 808 F.3d 1191, 1192 (8th Cir. 2015). 

 I am not unsympathetic to the pain and discomfort Plaintiff has experienced as a result of 

his long-term use of dentures and poor dental condition. However, prisoners “must clear a 

substantial evidentiary threshold” to show that the prison’s medical staff acted with deliberate 

indifference. Johnson v. Leonard, 929 F.3d 569, 576 (8th Cir. 2019); Nelson, 603 F.3d at 449. 

After a thorough review of the record, I conclude Plaintiff has not met that threshold. Thus, 

Defendant Dr. Jackson Breedlove is entitled to summary judgment, and I recommend Plaintiff’s 

inadequate dental claim against her be dismissed with prejudice. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that: 

 1. Defendant Jackson Breedlove’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 27) be 

GRANTED, Plaintiff’s inadequate dental care claim against her be DISMISSED with prejudice, 

and this case be CLOSED. 

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

appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would 

not be taken in good faith. 

 Dated this 12th day of February 2020. 

 ____________________________________ 

 JOE J. VOLPE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:18-cv-00895-KGB Document 37 Filed 02/12/20 Page 7 of 7