United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 18, 2015*

Decided July 22, 2015

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐3314

CONTRELL PLUMMER,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,  

INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 11‐cv‐00682‐MJR

Michael J. Reagan,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Contrell Plummer, an Illinois prisoner, has suffered from asthma since he was a

child. In prison he also experienced back and abdominal pain, constipation, and an

irritated throat. In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plummer principally claims that

Wexford Health Sources and two company physicians, Magid Fahim and Fe Fuentes,

violated the Eighth Amendment through deliberate indifference to these ailments.

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 14‐3314    Page 2

Plummer also claims that these defendants withheld medical care in retaliation for

naming them in grievances. The district court granted summary judgment for the

defendants, and we affirm that decision.   

Plummer filed this action in August 2011, complaining about events in 2010. The

pertinent facts are not in dispute, and we recount them in the light most favorable to

Plummer, as the opponent of summary judgment. See Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d

654, 655–56 (7th Cir. 2014).  

Plummer was housed at Menard Correctional Center for a number of years until

he was transferred in late 2013. During 2010 he was treated at least 25 times by the

medical staff, including the defendant physicians. That year Plummer’s doctors

prescribed a variety of asthma drugs, including corticosteroids and bronchodilators, to

both prevent and stop asthma attacks. These medications mostly were administered

using an inhaler (for aerosols) or nebulizer (to create a breathable mist from solutions).

A pulmonologist who later examined Plummer in 2012 after he filed this lawsuit

recommended two of the same drugs prescribed by the defendants. Fifteen X‐rays were

taken of Plummer’s chest, abdomen, back, pelvis, and neck between May 2009 and

September 2012. All were normal except for a few signs of constipation. The results of

an ultrasound from late 2009 also had been normal. Doctors treated Plummer’s

constipation with laxatives, a fiber supplement, and antacids. The medical staff also

gave Plummer ibuprofen and acetaminophen for his pain. For his irritated throat—an

X‐ray had ruled out his fear of cancer—Plummer was instructed to gargle salt water.  

At summary judgment the defendants argued that Plummer’s disagreement with

their course of treatment is not evidence of deliberate indifference. The defendants

submitted Plummer’s medical records, and in affidavits the two doctors recount their

treatment of his asthma and their investigation of his other complaints. Both doctors

explain that Plummer’s asthma medications cause constipation, which likely was the

source of his abdominal and back pain. In response Plummer criticized his treatment for

his asthma and constipation as ineffective and insisted that he should have seen the

pulmonologist sooner.

As the district court noted, however, Plummer did not aver that his complaints

had been ignored, nor did he dispute the doctors’ accounts of the treatment provided.

The defendants had not persisted with ineffective treatment, the court reasoned, but

instead had monitored his ailments and tried medications that the pulmonologist later

would endorse as appropriate. Plummer had shown some improvement, the court
No. 14‐3314    Page 3

noted, and a jury could not reasonably find that his conditions were ignored. Moreover,

the court added, the undisputed evidence establishes that the defendants had continued

treating Plummer even after he named them in grievances, which defeats his claim of

retaliation.  

   

On appeal Plummer points to no evidence creating a triable issue of fact about

the doctors’ treatment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c), (e); Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463–

64 (7th Cir. 2009). He asserts that he has been in continuous pain since 2007 without a

diagnosis, receives no pain medication, was not given the aerosol asthma medication he

wanted, and has been prescribed the same medications for his abdominal and back

pain, which have no effect. But the source of Plummer’s pain was diagnosed and he was

getting pain medication, so these accusations simply reinforce the defendants’

contention that Plummer disagrees with their conclusions and treatment, which cannot

sustain a claim of deliberate indifference. See McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 641 (7th

Cir. 2010); Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2006).  

In response to Plummer’s complaints of abdominal and back pain and difficulty

breathing, the doctors ordered multiple tests and tried a variety of treatments. And

though continuing to pursue an ineffective treatment might sometimes evidence

deliberate indifference, see Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 441 (7th Cir. 2010), Plummer

offered no evidence suggesting that the defendants failed to exercise medical judgment

or responded inappropriately to his ailments, see Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894–95

(7th Cir. 2008); Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2006). Plummer has

suffered from asthma for more than 42 years, and corticosteroids, which he was

prescribed, are the most effective long‐term treatment option. See Asthma Care Quick

Reference, NAT’L INST. OF HEALTH, https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health‐

pro/guidelines/current/asthma‐ guidelines/ quick‐reference (last updated June 2012).

But these drugs also can cause throat irritation. See Asthma Medications: Know Your

Options, MAYO CLINIC (Sept. 20, 2012), http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases‐

conditions/asthma/in‐depth/ asthma‐medications/art‐20045557. And one of the classes

of bronchodilators that Plummer was prescribed can cause constipation. See Side Effects

of Bronchodilator Medicines, NAT’L HEALTH SERV.,

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Bronchodilator‐drugs/ Pages/Side‐effects.aspx (last

reviewed May 19, 2014). A jury could not reasonably find that the defendants

disregarded Plummer’s need for medical care, not for his asthma or for the side effects

of his medications for that condition.  

   
No. 14‐3314    Page 4

This outcome is not changed by what Plummer characterizes as a delay in

sending him to the pulmonologist. Nothing in the record suggests that Plummer

needed a pulmonologist to treat his asthma or a specialist to treat his other conditions.

In fact, when he saw the pulmonologist for his asthma in 2012, the pulmonologist

recommended the same course of treatment as the prison doctors, showing that the

treatment was within the bounds of professional judgment. See Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d

403, 411–12 (7th Cir. 2014).  

Plummer’s argument that Wexford’s cost‐saving policies contributed to the

doctors’ deliberate indifference also fails, because Drs. Fahim and Fuentes were not

deliberately indifferent to Plummer’s medical needs. See Pyles, 771 F.3d at 412; Ray v.

Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 706 F.3d 864, 866 (7th Cir. 2013). In the past we have had

occasion to question the medical care provided through Wexford, see, e.g., Shields v. Ill.

Dep’t of Corr., 746 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2014) (Wexford was shielded from liability by

diffusing responsibility for medical care but prisoner was left with permanent shoulder

injury because he did not receive surgery); Smego v. Mitchell, 723 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2013)

(Wexford dentist waited 30 months to fill civil detainee’s cavities), in this instance,

however, we are encouraged that Wexford’s doctors were responsive to Plummer’s

medical needs.   

   

As for his retaliation claim, Plummer’s disagreement with the district court’s

ruling is frivolous. He says that Dr. Fahim did not see him for two years because of his

grievances and, when Dr. Fahim finally did examine him at the asthma clinic, would

not address his complaints of abdominal and back pain. Yet the grievances underlying

Plummer’s retaliation claim were submitted between July and October 2010; Dr. Fahim

treated Plummer in May and October of that year and was not even employed by

Wexford before September 2009 or after August 2011. More importantly, Dr. Fahim was

one of many healthcare providers at Menard, and, as discussed above, Plummer was

not deprived of any medical treatment, so he suffered no adverse action as required to

show retaliation. See Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 866 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining that

prisoner must show he “suffered a deprivation that would likely deter First

Amendment activity in the future”); Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009)

(same).

Finally, Plummer argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying

his six requests to recruit counsel. He contends that a lawyer was necessary to help him

amend his complaint to include a conditions‐of‐confinement claim and to add several

other members of the medical staff as defendants in his deliberate indifference claim.
No. 14‐3314    Page 5

He also says he needed a lawyer to help him with discovery. But a lawyer could not

have affected the outcome in this case. See Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 697 (7th Cir.

2013); Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 699–701 (7th Cir. 2008). The district court had

correctly severed Plummer’s conditions‐of‐confinement claim at screening (Plummer is

pursuing that claim in a separate action). See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir.

2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). And adding more defendants to

the deliberate‐indifference claim could not change the fact that no jury reasonably could

find for Plummer on this record.  

We have reviewed Plummer’s remaining contentions and conclude that none

merits additional discussion. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.