COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

June 28, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP991 Cir. Ct. No. 2021CV378

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

DESHAWN D. JOHNSON,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

 V.

KATELYN COWLEY,

 DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Fond du Lac County: 

DALE L. ENGLISH, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before Gundrum, P.J., Grogan and Lazar, JJ. 

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent 

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 
No. 2022AP991

2

¶1 PER CURIAM. Deshawn D. Johnson, an inmate in the Wisconsin 

prison system, appeals pro se from a circuit court order granting summary 

judgment to Correctional Officer Katelyn Cowley—dismissing Johnson’s tort suit 

against Cowley alleging that she gave him the wrong medication. We affirm.1 

I. BACKGROUND

¶2 In February 2020, Cowley worked as a correctional officer at the 

prison where Johnson was housed, and she distributed medication to Johnson. At 

the time, the prison’s medication delivery policy, DAI No. 500.80.11, required 

that, “Correctional Officers shall compare the label on the medication 

container/packaging to the DOC-3026 – Medication/Treatment Record to ensure 

accuracy identifying the right: a. Inmate. b. Medication. c. Dose. d. Time. 

e. Route.” The policy also stated: “Correctional Officers shall show the 

medication container/package and label to the inmate patient. The inmate patient 

verifies the following information is correct: a. Inmate patient name. 

b. Medication. c. Dose. d. Time. e. Route.”

¶3 A security-camera video from the night in question showed Cowley 

stop at Johnson’s cell, look at his medication card, show him his medication card, 

and then dispense the medication to him. After ingesting the medication, Johnson 

alleges that he was ill for two days. He claims that he ingested the medication first 

and then asked Cowley if he could see the medication card, at which time he 

realized it was the wrong medication. After his administrative complaints were 

 

1

 The Honorable Rhonda L. Lanford presided over this matter until the change of venue 

was ordered. The Honorable Dale L. English presided over the matter shortly thereafter and 

entered the final order.
No. 2022AP991

3

rejected based on the security-camera video showing that Cowley followed the 

proper medication delivery procedure, Johnson filed suit against Cowley, alleging 

she was negligent. Among his various claims, Johnson contended that Cowley 

was negligent because she violated the medication delivery policy. He asserted 

that Cowley failed to show him his medication card before he ingested the 

medication and that she failed to electronically scan the identification tag on his 

door to compare it to his medication card. 

¶4 Cowley denied Johnson’s contentions and moved for summary 

judgment. She argued that governmental immunity barred the negligence suit 

against her and that, even if immunity did not apply, Johnson was more negligent 

as a matter of law for willfully ingesting an unknown pill without verifying that it 

was his prescribed medication. In support of her summary judgment motion, 

Cowley included the security-camera video that showed her administering the pill 

to Johnson as well as her own affidavit and an affidavit of her supervisor, Captain 

Robert Rymarkiewicz, attesting that he viewed the video, and it showed that 

Cowley properly followed the medication delivery policy. The circuit court heard 

the summary judgment motion in May 2022 and issued a written order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Cowley “[f]or the reasons given on the record[.]” 

Johnson appeals from this order but, in doing so, indicated that transcripts would 

not be necessary to decide his appeal. Accordingly, Johnson’s appeal comes to us 

without a transcript from the summary judgment hearing.

II. DISCUSSION

¶5 Johnson’s failure to provide the summary judgment hearing 

transcript, particularly when the order appealed from states only that summary 

judgment was granted “[f]or the reasons given on the record,” leaves us with an 
No. 2022AP991

4

incomplete Record to review. “[W]hen an appellate record is incomplete in 

connection with an issue raised by the appellant, we must assume that the missing 

material supports the trial court’s ruling.” Fiumefreddo v. McLean, 174 Wis. 2d 

10, 27, 496 N.W.2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993). We conclude that the circuit court did 

not err in granting summary judgment to Cowley because governmental immunity 

bars Johnson’s negligence suit.2

¶6 This appeal arises from a grant of summary judgment based on 

governmental immunity. Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 

affidavits, if any, show 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.” WIS. STAT.

§ 802.08(2) (2021-22).

3

 “The general rule acknowledged in Wisconsin is that a 

public officer or employee is immune from personal liability for injuries resulting 

from acts performed within the scope of the individual’s public office.” C.L. v.

Olson, 143 Wis. 2d 701, 710, 422 N.W.2d 614 (1988). However, governmental 

immunity does not protect an employee who negligently performs a “ministerial 

duty[.]” Id. A duty is considered ministerial “only when it is absolute, certain and 

imperative, involving merely the performance of a specific task when the law 

imposes, prescribes and defines the time, mode and occasion for its performance 

with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion.” Lister v.

 

2

 Because Cowley is entitled to governmental immunity, we need not address Cowley’s 

alternate claim that summary judgment was appropriate because, as a matter of law, Johnson’s 

negligence was greater than Cowley’s. See Sweet v. Berge, 113 Wis. 2d 61, 67, 334 N.W.2d 559 

(Ct. App. 1983) (noting that we need not address other issues when one is dispositive of the 

appeal). 

3

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise 

noted.
No. 2022AP991

5

Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 72 Wis. 2d 282, 301, 240 N.W.2d 610 

(1976). Said differently, a ministerial duty eliminates an officer’s exercise of 

discretion. See Pries v. McMillon, 2010 WI 63, ¶26, 326 Wis. 2d 37, 784 N.W.2d 

648. Our supreme court has stated that “[w]here there is a written law or policy 

defining a duty, we naturally look to the language of the writing to evaluate 

whether the duty and its parameters are expressed so clearly and precisely, so as to 

eliminate the official’s exercise of discretion.” Id.

¶7 It is undisputed that the prison had a specific policy governing the 

delivery of medication to inmates and that Cowley’s distribution of medication 

constituted a ministerial duty. The issue is whether Cowley complied with the 

policy and is thus immune or whether she failed to follow the policy, which would 

allow Johnson’s negligence suit against her. Johnson argues that Cowley is not 

entitled to immunity because she did not follow the policy. He alleges that 

Cowley failed to show him his medication card before he ingested the medication. 

Johnson’s claim, however, is contradicted by the objective security-camera video, 

which shows that Cowley complied with the medication policy. Johnson’s claim 

is also contradicted by Captain Rymarkiewicz’s testimony after watching the 

video. The video evidence submitted in support of summary judgment 

demonstrated that Cowley complied with DAI Policy No. 500.80.11 because it 

“shows Officer Cowley look at Johnson’s medication card at the 1:06 mark, lean 

over to show Johnson the card at the 2:11 mark, and dispense the medication to 

him at the 2:40 mark.” Captain Rymarkiewicz concluded this was “proper 

procedure.” We must assume that the circuit court found the video evidence and 

Captain Rymarkiewicz’s testimony credible and Johnson’s version not credible 

because it granted Cowley’s summary judgment motion. Without the transcript, 

“‘we must assume that the missing material supports the trial court’s ruling.’” 
No. 2022AP991

6

State v. McAttee, 2001 WI App 262, ¶5 n.1, 248 Wis. 2d 865, 637 N.W.2d 774 

(citation omitted).4

¶8 Although Johnson argues that Cowley was negligent in 

administering his medication, he has failed to show any disputed issues of genuine 

material fact as to Cowley’s failure to follow the proper medication delivery 

procedure because the video and Captain Rymarkiewicz’s testimony conclusively 

refute his claims. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing 

parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the 

record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that 

version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”). 

Government employees are immune from personal liability for negligence claims 

unless they fail to follow a well-defined ministerial duty. See Kimps v. Hill, 200 

Wis. 2d 1, 10, 546 N.W.2d 151 (1996). Based upon the video evidence and sworn 

affidavits, Cowley complied with the medication delivery policy that required her 

to verify that the medication matched Johnson’s name on the medication card and 

then required her to show it to Johnson prior to dispensing the medication to him. 

Accordingly, she is entitled to immunity, and therefore, the circuit court properly 

awarded summary judgment in favor of Cowley.5

 

4

 Johnson also claims that Cowley did not follow the medication policy because she did 

not use “the ‘EMR’ scanner system” to deliver his medication. He claims that she was required 

to use the EMR scanner to scan his door tag to see if there was “any discrepancy” between his 

door tag and his medication. By granting summary judgment to Cowley, the circuit court flatly 

rejected Johnson’s scanner assertion. We see no basis to overturn the circuit court’s summary 

judgment decision on this basis. The medication policy says nothing about the use of a scanner, 

and therefore Johnson’s scanner claim is meritless.

5

 To the extent we have not addressed an argument purportedly raised on appeal, the 

argument is deemed rejected. See State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555, 564, 261 

N.W.2d 147 (1978).
No. 2022AP991

7

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.