Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-1_18-cv-00083/USCOURTS-ared-1_18-cv-00083-2/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

NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVE DUNCAN PLAINTIFF

ADC #103550

v. Case No. 1:18-cv-00083-KGB-JTK

DR. DAVID FORT DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States 

Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 51). Plaintiff Steve Duncan filed an objection to 

the Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 52). After careful review of the Findings and 

Recommendation, a de novo review of the record, and a review of the objections, the Court adopts 

the Findings and Recommendations as its findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 51). 

Mr. Duncan filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 29, 2018, alleging 

that defendants Correctional Care Solutions, Rory Griffin, Dr. David Fort, Sheila Armstrong, and 

Billy Cowell failed to provide adequate medical care and treatment related to Mr. Duncan’s 

diagnosis of Hepatitis C, resulting in the deterioration of his liver function and a decrease in his 

quality of life (Dkt. No. 2). On November 1, 2018, Judge Kearney granted Mr. Duncan’s motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis and directed that he submit an amended complaint within 30 days 

(Dkt. No. 4). Mr. Duncan then filed an amended complaint on December 26, 2018, naming only 

Dr. David Fort as the sole defendant (Dkt. No. 7). Despite his improved liver function since the 

filing of the original complaint, Mr. Duncan states in the amended complaint that he is seeking 

damages for the two years of alleged suffering he underwent due to the failure of Dr. Fort to 

provide a requested medication to treat Mr. Duncan’s Hepatitis C (Id.). On May 15, 2019, this 

Court dismissed without prejudice all of Mr. Duncan’s claims against defendants Correctional 

Case 1:18-cv-00083-KGB Document 53 Filed 02/11/20 Page 1 of 3
2

Care Solutions, Rory Griffin, Sheila Armstrong, and Billy Cowell for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 

No. 26). 

The remaining defendant, Dr. Fort, then moved for summary judgment on Mr. Duncan’s 

remaining claims (Dkt. Nos. 46-48). Mr. Duncan filed a response to Dr. Fort’s motion for 

summary judgment (Dkt. No. 50). In the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Judge 

Kearney recommends granting Dr. Fort’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing with 

prejudice Mr. Duncan’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 51). 

In his objections, Mr. Duncan argues that the Court should not adopt the Proposed Findings 

and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 52). Mr. Duncan claims that Dr. Fort was never questioned 

during the events leading up to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Id.). Mr. Duncan 

further alleges that, although defendants told the Court that a liver biopsy was performed on Mr. 

Duncan, it was not (Id.). Finally, Mr. Duncan asserts that he was never started on the requested 

medication, even after being told by defendants that he would be (Id.). For these reasons, Mr. 

Duncan argues that the Court should reject the recommendation and deny summary judgment as 

to the claim against Dr. Fort (Id.). 

This Court has reviewed Mr. Duncan’s objections and agrees with Judge Kearney that Mr. 

Duncan has failed to provide any record evidence that Dr. Fort’s actions were deliberate and 

indifferent to Mr. Duncan’s serious medical needs or that Mr. Duncan’s health deteriorated 

because of Dr. Fort’s decision not to prescribe him the requested medication (Dkt. No. 51). As 

stated by Judge Kearney, a mere disagreement with a treatment decision does not rise to the level 

of a constitutional violation (Id.). Therefore, this Court agrees with Judge Kearney that Mr. 

Duncan has failed to support an Eighth Amendment claim for relief (Id.). 

It is therefore ordered that: 

Case 1:18-cv-00083-KGB Document 53 Filed 02/11/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations as its findings in all respects 

(Dkt. No. 51);

2. Dr. Fort’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 46); 

3. Mr. Duncan’s claims against Dr. Fort are dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 7);

and

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

appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. 

So ordered this 11th day of February, 2020.

__________________________________ 

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 1:18-cv-00083-KGB Document 53 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 3