Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_19-cv-04084/USCOURTS-arwd-4_19-cv-04084-1/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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

TONY WAYNE PRITCHETT PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:19-cv-4084 

SERGEANT B. GRIFFIE, Miller County 

Detention Center (“MCDC”); CORPORAL 

B. SMITH, MCDC; SERGEANT D. ROGERS,

MCDC; NURSE S. KING, MCDC; NURSE

CHELSEY, MCDC; and NURSE CATHERINE, MCDC DEFENDANTS 

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed April 16, 2020, by the Honorable 

Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 

30). Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants Foster, King, and Adams’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment (ECF No. 19) be granted in part and denied in part.1 Specifically, Judge Bryant 

recommends that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims be dismissed and that his individual capacity 

claims remain for further consideration. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and 

Recommendation. (ECF No. 32). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. 

This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff alleges that his 

constitutional rights were violated when Defendants Foster, King, and Adams denied him access 

to necessary medical treatment. Defendants Foster, King, and Adams have moved for summary 

judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against them, and Judge Bryant subsequently issued the instant

Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that his individual capacity 

claims be dismissed. However, as noted above, Judge Bryant only recommends dismissing 

1 Defendant Foster is identified as “Nurse Chelsey” in the case caption. Likewise, Defendant Adams is identified as 

“Nurse Catherine.” 

Case 4:19-cv-04084-SOH Document 34 Filed 05/07/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims. Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, is entitled to liberal construction of 

his objections. See Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the Court 

construes Plaintiff’s objections as relating to his official capacity claims and will conduct a de 

novo review regarding those claims. 

Judge Bryant recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against 

Defendants Foster, King, and Adams because Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence of any policy 

or custom of Southern Health Partners, Inc. that contributed to the alleged violation of his 

constitutional rights. When a government contracts with a third-party to fulfill a constitutional 

duty—such as providing medical care—official capacity claims against the third-party’s 

employees are treated as claims against the third-party itself. See Cannady v. Cradduck, 2016 WL 

4432704, at *1-2 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 18, 2016) (finding that official capacity claims against

employees of a third-party medical provider are treated as claims against the company). Thus, 

Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants King, Foster, and Adams are claims against 

their employer, Southern Health Partners, Inc.2 To sustain an official-capacity claim against such 

an entity a plaintiff “must show that there was a policy, custom, or official action [of Southern 

Health Partners, Inc.] that inflicted an actionable injury.” Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 973 

(8th Cir. 2006) (involving a section 1983 claim against a prison medical provider).

Upon de novo review of the summary judgment record, the Court agrees with Judge Bryant. 

Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence of any policy or custom of Southern Health Partners, Inc. 

that contributed to the alleged violation of his constitutional rights. Therefore, Plaintiff’s official 

capacity claims against Defendants Foster, King, and Adams should be dismissed. The Court has 

2 MCDC contracted with Southern Health Partners, Inc. to provide healthcare services to the inmates housed there. 

Case 4:19-cv-04084-SOH Document 34 Filed 05/07/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3 

conducted a de novo review of the remainder of the Report and Recommendation and finds no 

reason warranting a departure from Judge Bryant’s recommendations. 

For the above-stated reasons, and upon de novo review, the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 30) in toto. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants Foster, 

King and Adams’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) should be and hereby is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants 

Foster, King, and Adams are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s individual capacity 

claims against Defendants Foster, King, and Adams remain for further consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of May, 2020. 

/s/ Susan O. Hickey 

 Susan O. Hickey 

 Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-04084-SOH Document 34 Filed 05/07/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>