Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06057/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06057-2/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)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

MATTHEW DAVID MILLER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-6057

 

OFFICER WILLIS, Jailer; 

and SGT. ANSLY; 

DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Matthew David Miller, a former inmate of the Garland County Detention Center, brings

this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Miller contends his constitutional

rights were violated in the following ways: (1) he was subjected to unreasonably dangerous

conditions when he was left for several hours in a cell that had water on the floor; and (2) he was

denied adequate medical care. 

On March 1, 2006, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 22). By order

entered on April 6, 2006 (Doc. 27), Miller was directed to complete, sign, and return an attached

questionnaire that would serve as his response to the summary judgment motion. On April 25,

2006, plaintiff's response to the court’s questionnaire (Doc. 28) was filed. The summary

judgment motion is currently before the undersigned for issuance of this report and

recommendation.

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

I. BACKGROUND

Miller was booked into the Garland County Detention Center (GCDC) on April 28, 2005.

Plaintiff’s Response (hereinafter Resp.) at ¶ 1. He was charged with failing to appear on a felony

charge of possession of a controlled substance. Id. at ¶ 2.

On July 28, 2005, Miller entered into a plea agreement and was sentenced to sixty (60)

months at the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Resp. at ¶ 4. He remained

incarcerated at the GCDC until he was transferred to the ADC on September 13, 2005. Id. at ¶

3.

Captain Mel Steed is the jail administrator of the GCDC. Resp. at ¶ 5. The GCDC has

in place a policy that requires the provision of medical care to inmates. Id. at ¶ 6(A). In the case

of an inmate needing non-emergency medical care, the inmate is directed to complete a medical

request form which is reviewed by the supervisor and then forwarded to Dr. Hale. Id. at ¶ 6(B).

If the decision is made that the inmate needs to see the doctor, the inmate is scheduled to see Dr.

Hale at his regular visit. Id. at ¶ 6(C).

According to Steed, Dr. Hale sees inmates at the jail at least once a week. Affidavit of

Mel Steed at ¶ 4. According to Miller, Dr. Hale “is a free world doctor and has a busy schedule.”

Resp. at ¶ 6(D). Miller maintains Dr. Hale’s schedule is sometimes so full he will miss a week

at the jail. Id. Miller indicates it happened while he was at the GCDC. Id.

All directives of Dr. Hale regarding prescription medication, referrals, x-rays, etc., are

complied with by GCDC staff. Resp. at ¶ 6(E). In emergency medical situations, inmates are

either transported to the emergency room or an ambulance is summoned to provide emergency

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

medical care. Steed Affidavit at ¶ 4. Miller notes Steed’s affidavit does not address how it is

determined what constitutes an emergency. Resp. at ¶ 6(F).

Steed maintains that no inmate is denied medical care. Steed Affidavit at ¶ 5. Miller

disagrees. Resp. at ¶ 6(G). He maintains he has been denied medical care numerous times as

is evidenced by his grievance forms. Id. Miller states that an inmate only get immediate medical

attention if the medical condition is noticeable such as when trauma is clearly visible. Id. If

there is no evidence of visual trauma, Miller maintains, it is not considered to be an emergency

situation at the GCDC. Id. Miller states he was lying on the floor in the holding cell in very bad

pain and did not get to go to the emergency room. Id. 

It is the policy of the GCDC to provide a safe environment for all persons detained there.

Resp. at ¶ 7. If something is in need of repair or is broken, detention center personnel notify the

maintenance department to allow them to make all reasonable and necessary repairs. Id. at ¶ 8.

On June 7, 2005, Miller’s cell-mate Zack Russell, flooded their cell. Resp. at ¶ 9. The

flood occurred at about 3:30 p.m. Id. at ¶ 10(A). 

Miller maintains he was not given an opportunity to clean the water from his cell. Resp.

at ¶ 10(B). There was about two to two and one half inches of water on the cell floor. Id. at ¶

10(C). Miller was not given an opportunity to move to another cell. Id. at ¶ 10(D).

Miller agrees that neither Officer Willis nor Sgt. Ansly were responsible for the cell being

flooded. Resp. at ¶ 16, ¶ 17 & ¶ 63. However, following the flood, Miller contends Willis put

blankets in front of the cell door to keep the water from escaping from the cell. Id. at ¶ 18.

According to Miller, Russell told Willis, Steed and other officers that he was the one who

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

flooded the cell and that Miller was an innocent bystander. Id. At this time, Miller maintains

he should have been removed from the cell. Id.

Miller asserts that when he asked Willis to let him clean up the cell, Willis responded that

they shouldn’t have flooded the cell. Resp. at ¶ 20. Miller states Willis let everyone else clean

their cells up and the day-room floor was also cleaned up. Id.

With respect to Ansly, Miller notes he was the officer in charge. Resp. at ¶ 19. After

Ansly was informed the cell had been flooded and that Russell admitted to the flooding, Miller

maintains Ansly should have had Miller removed from the cell to prevent anything from

happening to Miller. Id.

At about 6:00 p.m., Miller fell when getting down from the top bunk. Resp. at ¶ 11. He

requested medical attention at 6:10 p.m. and was transported to St. Joseph’s emergency room at

about 7:00 p.m. Id.

At the hospital, x-rays were taken and Miller was given pain pills. Resp. at ¶ 13. The

x-rays revealed nothing was broken but Miller did indicate his back was hurting. Id.

On June 8, 2005, Miller submitted a grievance. Resp. at ¶ 21. He stated that he had filled

out a medical request stating that his back was hurting. Id. He indicated he had not received a

response. Id. He stated he was in pain and the medicine was not working. Id.

In response, Miller was told that he was receiving the medication prescribed by the

doctor. Resp. at ¶ 22. He was told to fill out another medical request. Id.

On June 8, 2005, Miller submitted a medical request. Resp. at ¶ 23. He asked that

something be done right away because he was having sharp pains in his side. Id. In response,

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

a note was made that Miller was getting 800 mg of Ibuprofen three times a day as ordered by the

emergency room physician. Id. at ¶ 24.

On June 9, 2005, Miller submitted a medical complaint. Resp. at ¶ 25. He stated he was

having very bad back problems going up to his side by his ribs. Id. He stated the medicine was

not working. Id. He asked to be looked at and to be told what was wrong. Id.

In response, the nurse told Miller it was normal to have pain after receiving a trauma.

Resp. at ¶ 26. The nurse stated Miller was being treated as the emergency room physician

ordered. Id. The nurse stated he did not need to see Miller. Id.

On June 9, 2005, Miller submitted a grievance to Captain Steed. Resp. at ¶ 27. In the

grievance Miller stated that he fell on June 7th because Willis and Officer Halpin would not

clean his cell after the flood. Id. Miller complained that a blanket was put outside his cell door

so that water could not leave his cell. Id. He also stated his medicine was not working and

nothing was being done about it. Id.

Ansly responded that Miller should not have flooded his cell and that he needed to take

responsibility for his actions. Resp. at ¶ 29. Ansly also stated that Miller was being treated as

directed by the emergency room physician. Id. at ¶ 30.

On June 17, 2005, Miller was treated by Dr. Hale. Resp. at ¶ 31. Dr. Hale noted that

Miller had suffered trauma to his back and side from a fall in his cell. Id. The doctor prescribed

a medical mattress and Ultram for pain. Id.

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

On June 20, 2005, Miller submitted a medical request in which he stated he had a hole

in his leg from a staph infection. Resp. at ¶ 32(A). Miller was seen by the nurse that same day.

Id. at ¶ 32(B). The nurse gave Miller medications and band-aids. Id.

On June 29, 2005, Miller submitted a medical request complaining that his back and side

were hurting. Resp. at ¶ 33. He stated his medication was not working and he needed to be seen.

Id. 

In response, Miller was told that he had been refusing the pain medication that had been

prescribed for him. Resp. at ¶ 34. The nurse stated that Miller would not get any narcotic

medication. Id.

On July 2, 2005, Miller submitted a medical request in which he stated he was lactose

intolerant and couldn’t eat anything at breakfast. Resp. at ¶ 35. He also stated he needed his

prescription renewed. Id. In response, the nurse asked what prescription Miller needed refilled.

Id. at ¶ 36. Miller received the refill. Id.

With respect to his request for a change in his breakfast diet, Miller was asked to explain

why this was the first time he had submitted a request stating he was lactose intolerant. Resp.

at ¶ 38(A). He responded that he thought his medical records from a prior stay at the GCDC

would be the same. Id. Miller believes the nurse responded by stating that Miller was just trying

to get something extra and different from everybody else. Id. However, Miller states that he

can’t say exactly how the nurse responded because all his excess paper work has been taken

away from him. Id. 

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

On July 25, 2005, Miller submitted a grievance. Resp. at ¶ 39. He stated he had

accidentally jammed his finger. Id. He indicated he was seen by the nurse and told he could

look at it and try to un-jam it or Miller could go to the emergency room at his own expense. Id.

However, when he attempted to go to the emergency room, he stated Ansly indicated Miller

could not go to the emergency room. Id.

In response, Miller was told that the nurse would be consulted and if he believed Miller

needed medical treatment he would receive it. Resp. at ¶ 40. Miller was seen by Dr. Hale on

July 29, 2005. Id. at ¶ 41. He concluded Miller had a contusion on his left ring finger. Id. Dr.

Hale prescribed Naprosyn 500 mg., twice a day. Id.

On August 5, 2005, Miller submitted a medical request. Resp. at ¶ 42. He stated that he

had seen the doctor about his finger but that the medicine he was given was not helping. Id. He

also stated his bone was still pointing upwards. Id. He asked to see somebody. Id. 

In response, a note was made that Miller had a splint on his finger from Dr. Hale. Resp.

at ¶ 43. Note was also made that his finger was swollen as if jammed. Id. Miller was not seen

by the doctor or nurse in response to this request. Id.

On August 8, 2005, Miller submitted a medical request. Resp. at ¶ 45. He stated he had

been seen by the doctor and his finger was still in bad condition. Id. He asked for medical

attention. Id.

In response, a note was made that Miller’s finger looked better than it had on August 5th.

Resp. at ¶ 46. Miller was not seen by a doctor or nurse in response to this request. Id. at ¶ 47.

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

Miller submitted a grievance on August 9th. Resp. at ¶ 48. Miller complained that he

was not getting medical attention. Id. He stated he was in very bad pain. Id. He stated he

believed the officers were making him suffer. Id.

In response, Miller was told that he was on the list to see the doctor on August 11th.

Resp. at ¶ 49. Miller, however, asserts he did not see the doctor on August 11th. Id. at ¶ 50(A).

Miller was seen by Dr. Hale on August 19, 2005. Resp. at ¶ 50(B). He noted Miller had

some swelling in his finger but good movement. Id. Dr. Hale prescribed Ultram for pain. Id.

On August 27, 2005, Miller submitted a medical request. Resp. at ¶ 51. He stated that

his back was hurting. Id. He indicated he had been given a medical mattress but that it was not

doing any good. Id. He stated the medication was not helping with the pain. Id.

In response, Miller was told he had been to see Dr. Hale at least two times and had been

given pain medication. Resp. at ¶ 52. He was told that the pain medication was for his finger

but that it worked for all pain. Id. He was told the pain medication he was taking was equal to

morphine. Id.

On September 5, 2005, Miller submitted a medical complaint stating that his lower back

was hurting. Resp. at ¶ 53. Miller was seen by the nurse in response to the request. Id. at ¶ 54.

Miller was seen by Dr. Hale on September 8, 2005. Resp. at ¶ 55. Dr. Hale noted Miller

was complaining of lower back pain. Id. Dr. Hale diagnosed Miller with lumbago or chronic

pain in the lower back and prescribed an extra mattress if one was available and Ultram, twice

a day, for pain. Id.

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

Miller received all medication prescribed him by the emergency room doctor, Dr. Hale,

or the nurse. Resp. at ¶ 56. Dr. Hale did not order that Miller undergo any type of surgical

treatment or that he be referred to a different doctor. Id. at ¶ 57. All orders given by Dr. Hale

concerning Miller’s medical care were complied with by the staff of the GCDC. Id. at ¶ 58.

The named defendants did not refuse to allow Miller to see Dr. Hale. Resp. at ¶ 61. The

named defendants did not refuse to secure medical care that had been prescribed by Dr. Hale.

Id. at ¶ 62.

Willis did not deny Miller medical care. Resp. at ¶ 15. However, Miller maintains Sgt.

Ansly denied him medical care on numerous occasions. Id. at ¶ 14. Miller indicates Ansly told

Officer McKinney that Miller’s resources had run out and he could not get medical help. Id.

Miller indicates the second time Ansly denied him medical care was on July 25, 2005, when

Miller slammed his finger in the cell door. Id. According to Miller, the nurse said he had the

right to go the emergency room. Id. However, Ansly stated he could only get a finger splint and

two Ibuprofen. Id. See also Resp. at ¶ 59.

II. 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

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

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)). 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants have now moved for summary judgment. First, defendants argue that the

facts set forth in the light most favorable to the plaintiff fail to establish that they violated the

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Second, if an official capacity claim is asserted against them,

defendants argue there is no evidence of any custom or policy of Garland County that was a

moving force behind any alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Finally, defendants

contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on any individual capacity claims .

Conditions of Confinement

When Miller fell in his cell on June 7, 2005, he was a pretrial detainee. See Resp. at ¶

4. As a pre-trial detainee, he was “outside the protections of the Eighth Amendment proscription

against cruel and unusual punishment, which applies only to convicted prisoners.” Hott v.

Hennepin County, Minnesota, 260 F.3d 901, 905 (8th Cir. 2001). Instead, pre-trial detainees are

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees. Id. “The Fourteenth Amendment

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-11-

guarantees pre-trial detainees at least as many protections as does the Eighth Amendment,

however, and extends to them as well protection from deprivations that are intended to punish.”

Id. 

“Conditions of pretrial confinement are impermissible if they constitute punishment as

determined by the due process standards of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Ferguson

v. Cape Girardeau County, 88 F.3d 647, 650 (8th Cir. 1996)(citing, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.

520, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979)). See also Whitnack v. Douglas County, 16 F.3d

954, 957 (8th Cir. 1994)(citing Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993) and Bell v.

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979)). "[A] pretrial detainee faces a

lighter burden to show a constitutional violation than [that required of a convicted person] under

the Eighth Amendment." Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 n. 4 (8th Cir. 1996)(citing Bell,

441 U.S. at 537 n. 16 (due process requires that a pretrial detainee not be punished; the Eighth

Amendment requires that the punishment imposed not be cruel and unusual)).

In elaborating on the appropriate standard to be applied to conditions of confinement

claims brought by pretrial detainees, the Eighth Circuit in Smith said: 

The proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of the

detainee, for, under the Due Process Clause, a detainee may not be punished prior to an

adjudication of guilt. However, not every disability imposed during pretrial detention

amounts to "punishment" in the constitutional sense. Thus, if a particular condition or

restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental

objective, it does not, without more, amount to "punishment." The Government has

legitimate interests that stem from its need to manage the facility in which the individual

is detained. Furthermore, there is a de minimis level of imposition with which the

Constitution is not concerned.

Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1996)(citations omitted).

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-12-

To prevail on his conditions of confinement claim, the Eighth Circuit has required both

inmates and pretrial detainees to show: (1) the condition was serious enough to deprive them

of the minimal measure of life’s necessities, or to constitute a substantial risk of serious harm;

and (2) officials were deliberately indifferent to the inmates’ or detainees’ health and safety.

Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Here, there are no genuine issues of fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate

indifference towards Miller’s safety. The flood of the cell originated in the cell occupied by

Miller and Russell. Resp. at ¶ 9. The flood occurred at 3:30 p.m. on June 7, 2005. Id. at ¶

10(A). There was approximately two to two and one half inches of water on the cell floor. Id.

at ¶ 10(C). Miller fell at about 6:00 p.m.. Id. at ¶ 11. He requested medical attention at about

6:10 p.m. Id. He was transported to the hospital at about 7:00 p.m. Id. 

Thus, the flood, Miller’s fall, and his being taken for medical care all occurred in a span

of less than four hours. “[E]very injury suffered by an inmate does not necessarily translate into

constitutional liability for prison officials.” Osolinski v. Kane, 92 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1996).

While we do not hold that leaving a pretrial detainee in a flooded cell can never establish a claim

of constitutional dimension, we believe that under the circumstances of this case no claim of

constitutional dimension is stated. Miller was not left for an extended period of time in the

flooded cell and there is simply nothing to support a finding that defendants were aware there

was a substantial risk he would fall because of the water on the cell floor and that a fall would

cause serious harm. See e.g., Perkins v. Grimes, 161 F.3d 1127, 110 (8th Cir. 1998)(Plaintiff

must prove the officials knew of facts from which they could infer a substantial risk of serious

harm existed and that the officials drew that inference); Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 268-269

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-13-

(8th Cir. 1995)(finding no violation where pretrial detainee was subjected to overflowed toilet

in his cell for 4 days; analysis of confinement conditions must be based on totality of

circumstances and, to prevail, inmate must show officers were deliberately indifferent to risk of

harm posed by conditions).

Denial of Adequate Medical Care

As noted above, Miller was incarcerated at the GCDC from April 28, 2005, until

September 13, 2005. Resp. at ¶ 1 & ¶ 3. Until July 28, 2005, he was a pretrial detainee. Resp.

at ¶ 4. 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), “[t]he standard to

be applied in assessing a pretrial detainee’s claim of due process violations . . . is not entirely

clear.” Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Co., 183 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 1999)(citation

omitted). Nevertheless, “[t]he Supreme Court has held that pretrial detainees are entitled under

the Fourteenth Amendment to ‘at least as great’ protection as that afforded convicted prisoners

under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. (quoting City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463

U.S. 239, 244, 103 S. Ct. 2979, 77 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1983). 

In the absence of a clearly binding standard, the Eighth Circuit in analyzing inadequate

medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees has applied the Eighth Amendment's deliberate

indifference standard. See e.g., Hartsfield, 371 F.3d at 456-457; Spencer, 183 F.3d at 905-06;

Hall v. Dalton, 34 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir. 1994)(analyzing a pretrial detainee's claim of

inadequate medical care under the deliberate indifference standard). “In order to state a

cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-14-

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).

"[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

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-15-

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, Miller makes no argument that Willis denied him medical care. Resp. at ¶

15. Instead, his claim is premised on actions taken by Ansly. Id. at ¶ 14 & ¶ 59. He contends

Ansly stated Miller could get no medical attention because his resources had run out. Id.

Additionally, Miller contends Ansly denied him the right to go to the emergency room when he

slammed his finger in the cell door. 

Miller concedes all medical request forms completed by inmates are reviewed by

supervisors at the GCDC and then forwarded to Dr. Hale. Resp. at ¶ 6(B). Miller also concedes

all directives of Dr. Hale are complied with by GCDC staff. Id.. at ¶ 6(E). 

Miller was taken to the emergency room on June 7, 2005. Resp. at ¶ 12. Miller received

the medication prescribed by the doctor. Id. at ¶ 22. When Miller complained that the

medication was not working, his request was responded to by the nurse. Id. at ¶ 26.

Miller was seen by Dr. Hale on June 17th. Resp. at ¶ 31. On June 20th, he was seen by

the nurse. Id. at ¶ 32(B). 

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-16-

On June 29th, Miller complained the medication he was receiving was not working.

Resp. at ¶ 33. His complaint was responded to by the nurse. Id. at ¶ 34. Miller then asked for

a prescription refill and was provided it by the nurse. Id. at ¶¶ 35-37. Millers’ request for a

change in his diet based on lactose intolerance was also responded to by the nurse. Id. at ¶ 38.

After Miller hurt his finger, he was seen by the nurse. Resp. at ¶ 39. When Miller

submitted a grievance on July 25th complaining that Ansly would not allow him to go to the

emergency room, the nurse was consulted and Miller told if the nurse believed Miller needed

medical treatment he would receive it. Id. at ¶ 40. Miller was then seen by Dr. Hale on July

29th. Id. Miller was seen again by Dr. Hale on August 19th, and September 8th. Resp. at ¶

50(B) & ¶ 55. 

Miller received all medication prescribed for him by medical personnel. Resp. at ¶ 56.

All orders regarding Miller’s medical care given by Dr. Hale were carried out by GCDC

personnel. Id. at ¶ 58.

It is obvious from the undisputed facts that Miller was not denied medical attention by

Ansly. Miller received medical attention on multiple occasions and his requests for medical

treatment were evaluated by medical personnel. Miller received all medical care ordered by the

medical personnel who treated him. He was treated following his fall, his injury to his finger,

and his complaints of back pain. While Miller did not believe the treatment he received was

adequate, a difference of opinion between Miller and the medical personnel who treated Miller

regarding his treatment or the necessity of his going to the emergency room does not give rise

to a § 1983 claim. Bellecourt v. United States, 994 F.2d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1993); Davis v. Hall,

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-17-

992 F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir. 1993). We find there are no genuine issues of material fact as to

whether Ansly was deliberately indifferent to Miller’s serious medical needs. 

 IV. CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and

this case dismissed.

The parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 14th day of June 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:05-cv-06057-JLH Document 29 Filed 06/14/06 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>