Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_18-cv-00190/USCOURTS-ared-5_18-cv-00190-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

 PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

DEVERICK SCOTT, PLAINTIFF 

ADC #131042 

v. 5:18CV00190-KGB-JTK 

WENDY KELLY, 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 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 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 15
2 

the District Judge in the form 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 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 Deverick Scott is a state inmate incarcerated at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas 

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

deliberate indifference, negligence, and medical malpractice by Defendants with respect to his 

serious dental needs.1 (Doc. No. 5) 

This matter is before the Court on the Motions for Summary Judgment, Briefs in Support, 

and Statements of Fact filed by remaining Defendants Correct Care Solutions, Dove,2 Jason Kelly, 

and Stringfellow (Doc. Nos. 44-46), and Rory Griffin (Doc. Nos. 49-51). 3 Plaintiff filed 

Responses, Briefs, and Statements of Fact in opposition to the Motions (Doc. Nos. 55-60). 

 

1 Defendants Wendy Kelly, Payne, Cashion, McHan, Does, and Gibson were dismissed on 

December 18, 2018 (Doc. No. 37). 

2

 Originally identified by Plaintiff as “Drove.” 

3 Originally identified by Plaintiff as “Roy” Griffin. 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 15
3 

II. Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 5) 

 Plaintiff alleged that after he submitted a sick call in November 2016, a dentist saw him in 

December 2016 and placed him on a “filling” list for one of his teeth. He saw a Defendant 

Stringfellow in February 2017, who again placed him on the list for a filling. In August 2017 he 

saw Defendant Dove, who also placed Plaintiff on the list for a filling. However, Plaintiff’s tooth 

was not filled under December 5, 2017. He wrote several grievances during that time which 

Defendant Griffin found with merit, but still did not receive the requested treatment until 

December 2017. Defendants Jason Kelly and CCS also failed to ensure that the Varner Unit was 

staffed with a dentist and failed to provide the proper scheduled treatment. 

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 

judgment, the non-movant cannot simply create a factual dispute; rather, there must be a genuine 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 15
4 

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

A. Motion of Defendants CCS, Kelly, Stringfellow, and Dove (Medical 

Defendants) 

Defendants state Plaintiff’s allegations against them should be dismissed because he cannot 

show that they acted with deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. In support they submit 

Plaintiff’s medical records and deposition statements and the Affidavit of Dr. Susan McDonald, a 

dentist employed by Wellpath, LLC (formerly known as CCS), who is licensed to practice in the 

State of Arkansas. 

1) Medical Records (Doc. No. 45-1) 

The relevant portions of Plaintiff’s medical records show the following: 

On November 13, 2016, Plaintiff requested a dental cleaning and a new filling, and he was 

seen by Defendant Stringfellow, a dentist, on December 8, 2016. (P. 2) Stringfellow noted 

restorable occlusal decay in a tooth identified as #18, and placed Plaintiff on a “restorative list.” 

(P. 6) On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a sick call request about his tooth and complained 

about an infection in his swollen jaw. (P. 23) Defendant Stringfellow again examined him on 

February 20, 2017, and noted that Plaintiff was biting his cheek on the right side and did not present 

with an infection or injury. (P. 25) He also noted that decay was present and restorable and placed 

him on the “restorative list” for tooth #13. (Id.) 

 On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a sick call request complaining about throat pain and 

pain in a left tooth. (P. 57) On May 15, 2017, he signed a refusal form indicating that he did not 

want to be examined at sick call. (P. 62) He submitted another sick call request on July 2, 2017 

complaining about his throat and the delay in getting his teeth filled. (P. 73) He again refused sick 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 4 of 15
5 

call for treatment on July 10, 2017. (Pp. 73, 75) During a July 14, 2017 sick call with a non-party 

medical professional, Plaintiff was treated for a boil on the right side of his face, with notations of 

no tooth pain or recent dental issues. (P. 77) The note also stated the following: “Mouth: teeth 

appearing good repair and with no sign of dental infection nor mass noted in the gingiva or 

submandibular areas.” (Id.) Plaintiff was seen again at sick call on July 18, 2017 by Defendant 

Dove for complaints that his right face was swollen, who noted that the swelling was facial, not 

dental, in nature, and that Plaintiff’s concern was the completion of his restorations. (P. 78) Dr. 

Dove conducted a limited examination and recommended filling of tooth #13 and extraction of 

tooth #17. (Id.) On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a request for teeth filling, and on July 29, 

2017, he submitted a complaint about throat pain. (Pp. 81, 84) 

 Dr. Dove saw Plaintiff on August 1, 2017 per his request to have his tooth filled. (P. 85) 

Dr. Dove noted occlusal decay in #18, with no redness or swelling, and that Plaintiff should return

to the clinic for restoration of #18. (Id.) Plaintiff requested teeth cleaning and received such on

August 24, 2017. (Id.) He was scheduled for restoration of #18 on October 3, 2017, but that visit 

was cancelled because of no water at the Unit. (P. 106) Dr. Dove’s notes indicate that “dental 

concerns are a non-restorable tooth #17 and tooth #18 has deep decay and may never have been 

restorable. An attempt will be made to restore tooth #18 with amalgam,” and that Plaintiff was to 

return to the clinic at the next available time allowed. (Id.) An October 5, 2017 addendum to the 

August 1, 2017 dental notes stated as follows: “Pt. refused this day to have tooth #17 extracted. 

Policy is extractions before any type of restorations. To reappoint for earliest restoration possible, 

Pt. previously was only on extraction list. By refusing extraction he effectively has slowed his 

treatment down. Will be seen for restoration in spite of ADC policy and procedure.” (P. 85) On 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 5 of 15
6 

October 10, 2017, Plaintiff returned to the clinic for restoration of #31, per a previous diagnosis, 

with no redness or swelling noted. (Pp. 108, 110) Dr. Dove also again noted that #17 should be 

extracted. (P. 110) Plaintiff appeared at dental sick call on November 2, 2017, and Dr. Dove noted 

the need to restore #18 and that #13 should be observed for three months. (P. 113) Dr. Dove further

noted: “Pt. to return to have tooth #18 restored. Tooth #13 should only be observed as we have 

told him every time we have seen him. He has also acknowledged this every time we have seen 

him and explained to him what his treatment should and will be.” (Id.) And on December 5, 2017, 

Plaintiff’s tooth #18 was restored, with notes of no redness or swelling. (P. 114) 

 In addition to these records, Defendants submitted records to show that from December 8, 

2016 through January 4, 2018, Plaintiff (who was housed in administrative segregation) received 

almost daily health check-ins, at which times he never issued a complaint about dental pain. (Doc. 

No. 45-1) 

 2) Plaintiff’s deposition testimony (Doc. No. 45-2) 

 Plaintiff testified that the time period at issue in his complaint is from November 2016 

through December 2017, during which time he was housed in administrative segregation, and most 

of that time, in punitive isolation. (Pp. 8-11) He also testified that this lawsuit concerns the alleged 

non-treatment of only tooth #18, located on his lower left side, and not any of his other teeth. (P. 

20) He first complained about the tooth in November 2016 and was placed on a list for a filling in 

December 2016. (Pp. 23, 25) He also stated that Dr. Dove told him #31 needed to be filled before 

#18 was filled. (P. 28) Plaintiff complained that the Unit did not have a resident dentist from 

November 2016 until Dr. Dove arrived in August 2017, and he did not see Dr. Stringfellow after 

February 2017. (Pp. 29-31, 33, 53) He also stated he wrote a grievance about his dental issues at 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 6 of 15
7 

least once every month. (P. 39) He acknowledged that during the time at issue he received 

Tylenol and Nortriptyline for pain and did not request any additional pain medications. (Pp. 57-

58) He stated that he suffered pain, sometimes sharp, which was not constant, and which would 

“come and go”. (Pp. 67-68) 

 3) McDonald Affidavit 

 Dr. McDonald stated that she reviewed Plaintiff’s dental records from November 1, 2016 

through December 31, 2017, and that during all times he had active prescriptions for pain 

medications including Nortriptyline, Gabapentin, Tylenol or Advil. Based on her review, she noted 

Plaintiff testified he never had a dental infection during the relevant period of time and that tooth 

#18 is good. She stated that Plaintiff did not have a serious dental need during the relevant period 

of time and may have experienced some dental sensitivity to # 18 but was not in constant pain. 

She also found no evidence of nerve involvement or infection in #18, indicating that it was not 

symptomatic and that the cavity he experienced did not reach the tooth’s pulp, which contains the 

nerves and blood vessels. Therefore, she concluded that it was appropriate to place him on the 

restorative list and provide a filling in normal course of business, noting that any pain was 

attributable to tooth #17, for which he refused extraction. Finally, she noted that each time 

Plaintiff submitted a dental request form he was seen within a reasonable amount of time to assess 

acute needs, none of which were identified at those examinations. Based on all this, Dr. McDonald 

stated that the dental care treatment Plaintiff received was appropriate and satisfactory for his 

complaints, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. 

 Based on this evidence, Defendants state Plaintiff cannot show that they acted with 

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, and that the delay in medical treatment resulted 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 7 of 15
8 

in a detrimental medical effect, citing Farmer v. Brennan,511 US. 825, 837 (1994), and Beyerbach 

v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324 (8th Cir. 1995). 

 In response, Plaintiff states Defendants abided by a custom and policy of delaying medical 

treatment and that it resulted in tooth #18 “un-restorable.” (Doc. No. 56, p. 2) Plaintiff alleges he 

was denied and delayed serious medical attention for over one year and that a reasonable jury 

could find that the CCS policies delayed and denied necessary medical treatments. 

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. 

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 at 1326. Finally, 

“[i]n the face of medical records indicating that treatment was provided and physician affidavits 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 8 of 15
9 

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 v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d at 

1240. 

Initially, the Court notes that the main facts in this case are not disputed by the parties. 

Plaintiff was first placed on the restorative list for tooth #18 in December 2016 and he received 

the restored filling in December 2017. Plaintiff was seen on several occasions by two different 

dentists and received treatment for other dental issues. And medical and dental professionals 

always responded to any requests Plaintiff submitted. To be sure, however, the Court cannot 

understand why it took a year to obtain the restorative filling, or why tooth #18 could not have 

been restored at the same time other teeth were restored. Yet there is no evidence that any of the 

Defendants were responsible for the scheduling of Plaintiff’s appointments or otherwise acted with 

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s needs. Next, the Court notes that although Plaintiff now 

claims in his response that he suffered pain, there are no dental-related complaints of pain in his 

medical records and there are large gaps of time between his inquiries about the status of his 

appointment. In addition, Plaintiff never complained of pain during the nearly daily checks made 

to his cell during that time and he admitted he was taking several different types of prescription 

pain killers. The medical records of his visits also always indicated no swelling, sign of infection, 

or tooth pain. The Court notes that on two occasions when Plaintiff did complain about pain in 

sick call requests, he subsequently refused treatment. And he admittedly rejected Dr. Dove’s 

efforts to extract a tooth beyond restoration which was located next to #18. In the notes of his 

July 14, 2017 sick call visit for treatment of a facial boil, it was recorded that Plaintiff suffered no 

tooth pain or recent dental issues. 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 9 of 15
10 

With respect to Plaintiff’s allegations against the individual Defendants, the Court finds 

hardly any mention of Defendant Jason Kelley and it appears that Plaintiff’s complaint with him 

was the same as with CCS, which was the delay in treatment and lack of a resident dentist. 

However, as noted above, Plaintiff has provided no medical evidence to show that he suffered a 

detrimental effect from the delay. See Beyerbach, 49 F.3d at 1326. The record indicates that 

during the first part of 2017, the Varner Unit did not staff a full time dentist, and relied on visiting 

dentists from other Units. However, even given the extended delay, Plaintiff was treated on 

several occasions for other ailments and the Court finds no evidence that any CCS 

policies/procedures caused a constitutional violation. 

Plaintiff saw Defendant Stringfellow two times, and both times the dentist placed him on 

the restorative list. Plaintiff first saw Defendant Dove in July 2017, and between that time and 

December 5, Plaintiff received new fillings in two teeth (##31, 18) and a teeth cleaning. There is 

no evidence in the record to support a finding that either of these dentists acted with deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. As stated in Dulany, Plaintiff does not present 

evidence “that the course of treatment, or lack thereof, so deviated from professional standards 

that it amounted to deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment right to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishment.” 132 F.3d at 1234. Therefore, the Court finds that the 

Medical Defendants’ Motion should be granted. 

In light of such, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 

negligence and medical malpractice claims. McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982, 984-94 (8th Cir. 

1994). 

B. Defendant Griffin’s Motion 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 10 of 15
11 

1) Official Capacity 

The Court first finds that Plaintiff’s monetary claims against Defendant Griffin in his 

official capacity should be dismissed, pursuant to sovereign immunity. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t 

of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). 

 2) Individual Capacity 

The Court also agrees that Plaintiff’s monetary claims against Griffin in his individual 

capacity should be dismissed, pursuant to qualified immunity, which protects officials who act in 

an objectively reasonable manner. It may shield a government official from liability when his or 

her conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). 

Qualified immunity is a question of law, not a question of fact. McClendon v. Story County 

Sheriff's Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, issues concerning qualified immunity 

are appropriately resolved on summary judgment. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 

(1985) (the privilege is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an 

absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.”). 

To determine whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the courts generally 

consider two questions: (1) whether the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, establish a violation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) whether 

that right was so clearly established that a reasonable official would have known that his or her 

actions were unlawful. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009).4

 Defendants are entitled 

 1

Courts are “permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the 

two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 11 of 15
12 

to qualified immunity only if no reasonable fact finder could answer both questions in the 

affirmative. Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, 583 F.3d 522, 528 (8th Cir. 2009). 

According to Defendant Griffin’s Declaration, he is employed by the ADC as Deputy 

Director for Health and Correctional Service, which includes responsibilities for: medical and 

mental health services, treatment programs, sex offender assessments, industry, accreditation, 

Paws in Prison, transportation, healthcare grievances, chaplaincy services, and volunteer services. 

(Doc. No. 49-1, p. 1) He reviews all inmate grievance appeals regarding medical issues to 

determine whether they have merit, whether policy was followed, and whether prescribed medical 

treatment was implemented. (Id.) If he determines that the issue in an appealed grievance has merit, 

attempts will be made to resolve the matter through the development of a corrective action plan, a 

monetary fine, or other resolution. (Id., p. 2) Griffin does not, however, provide medical treatment, 

supervise medical staff at the units, schedule medical appointments, become involved in the dayto-day delivery of medical care or services, or make clinical recommendations for decisions 

regarding inmate care. (Id.) 

Griffin reviewed four grievances relevant to Plaintiff’s complaint. In VSM 17-01645, 

Plaintiff complained on May 3, 2017, that he had been referred to the dentist since November 2016 

for a filling and had not been seen, and that ADC and CCS violated policy by failing to provide 

him a dentist. (Id., p. 3; see also grievance, Doc. No. 49-3) Although the grievance initially was 

rejected as untimely, it was not, and Griffin found merit to Plaintiff’s appeal due to the delay in 

 

circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Nelson, 583 F.3d at 528 (quoting Pearson v. 

Callahan, 555 U.S. at 236). 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 12 of 15
13 

treatment. (Id.) In addition, CCS developed a correction action plan in response, to evaluate the 

dental sick call process to ensure effectiveness and educate the dental assistant on the importance 

of ensuring timely-scheduled dental procedures. (Id.) 

In grievance VSM 17-02455, Plaintiff complained on July 14, 2017 about a nine-month 

dental delay which caused a wanton infliction of pain. (Id., pp. 3-4; see also grievance, Doc. No. 

49-4) The medical department reviewed Plaintiff’s records and noted that the grievance had merit 

but that the issue was resolved on August 1, 2017. (Id., p. 4) However, on appeal, Plaintiff stated 

he did not receive the filling and a check of his electronic medical record resulted in no 

documentation that he had. (Id). Griffin then found the appeal with merit, and his staff contacted 

the medical department and requested that Scott be scheduled for fillings. (Id.) CCS also submitted 

another corrective action plan in response to Griffin’s decision. (Id.) 

On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed grievance VSM 17-02877, complaining that he did not 

receive a filling the week prior as scheduled. (Id., pp. 4-5; see also grievance, Doc. No. 49-5) 

Plaintiff further complained he experienced pain and suffering for eleven months due to delays 

and being denied dental care. (Id.) Griffin reviewed Plaintiff’s medical records and found the 

appeal with merit and CCS submitted a corrective action plan. (Id.) He also noted that Plaintiff 

had received the filling. (Id.) 

Finally, in grievance VSM 17-03388, on October 4, 2017, Plaintiff complained he had 

waited over a month for his filling, but by the time Griffin received the appeal, Plaintiff had 

received the filling, so he found the appeal without merit and the issue addressed in VSM 17-

02877. (Id., p. 5; see grievance, Doc. No. 49-6.) 

Plaintiff claims that Griffin’s knowledge of his dental delays and his position of authority 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 13 of 15
14 

necessitated his involvement in ensuring that Plaintiff received appropriate care. Having 

reviewed the evidence and case law, the Court finds Griffin acted appropriately and did not 

violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

First, Defendant Griffin’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s dental issues is basically limited to the 

first two grievances filed, because by the time the appeals in the latter two grievances reached 

Griffin, Plaintiff’s tooth was restored. Griffin’s response to the first grievance, VSM 17-01645 

was to find that the appeal had merit and CCS submitted a corrective action plan. His response 

to the second grievance, VSM 17-02455 was to have his staff contact the medical department and 

request that Plaintiff be scheduled for the fillings. Griffin filed that response, finding the appeal 

with merit, on September 30, 2017. We know from the record that Plaintiff was scheduled for 

the filling on October 3, 2017, but that it was postponed because the Unit lacked water. The 

record indicates Plaintiff had one tooth filled on October 10, 2017, and another tooth filled on 

December 5, 2017. Whether or not Griffin had anything to do with this is not known; however, 

there is no evidence that Griffin acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical 

needs, especially since he is not a medical doctor and his role is limited to reviewing the final step 

in the grievance process. Therefore, the Court finds as a matter of law that no reasonable fact 

finder could find that the facts alleged or shown, construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, 

established a violation of a constitutional or statutory right by Defendant Griffin. 

As noted above, the Court also will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant Griffin. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 14 of 15
15 

Judgment (Doc. Nos. 44, 49) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants be 

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of July, 2019. 

________________________________ 

JEROME T. KEARNEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:18-cv-00190-KGB Document 61 Filed 07/02/19 Page 15 of 15