United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 1, 2022*

Decided April 4, 2022 

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

No. 21-2347 

MARLON T. YOUNG,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SANDRA McARDLE, 

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 19-cv-1352-bhl

Brett H. Ludwig, 

Judge.

O R D E R 

Marlon Young, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued nurse practitioner Sandra McArdle 

for being deliberately indifferent to his leg pain, in violation of his rights under the 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1
No. 21-2347 Page 2 

Eighth Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court entered summary judgment 

for McArdle based on the conclusion that she exercised reasonable medical judgment in 

treating Young. Because there is no evidence that McArdle provided constitutionally 

deficient treatment, we affirm. 

We describe Young’s medical care based on the undisputed facts at summary 

judgment, viewed in the light most favorable to him. Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016, 

1022 (7th Cir. 2019). On March 22, 2019, Young, a diabetic dealing with chronic pain, felt 

a pop in his right leg, resulting in “excruciating pain” that led him to submit an 

emergency medical-care request. In response, two registered nurses evaluated Young at 

his cell the same day. They consulted with McArdle (who was on call at the time) by 

phone and instructed Young to take pain medication and offered him a knee wrap. But 

Young clarified that he felt pain in his leg, not his knee, so the nurses called McArdle 

again, and she recommended an extra pillow. The nurses told Young that McArdle 

would see him for a follow-up appointment on March 26. But the morning of the 

appointment, McArdle rescheduled it for April 15, erroneously noting that Young had 

been seen on March 15 “for the same complaint.” At the rescheduled appointment in 

April, McArdle observed that Young arrived without using a mobility aid and refused 

to perform mobility tests. She extended the existing order for pain medication, ice, and 

extra pillows; prescribed capsaicin cream; taught Young to apply a warm compress 

followed by stretching; and ordered physical therapy. In June 2019, an X-ray showed 

that Young had only mild osteoarthritis in his right hip.

Young sued the two responding nurses, the warden, and McArdle under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to his leg pain. At screening, the district 

judge allowed Young to proceed against only McArdle, reasoning that he failed to state 

a claim against the other defendants. Young responded by asking the judge to appoint 

counsel, arguing that his case was complex. But the judge declined the request, finding 

that Young had not explained why he could not competently litigate the case. 

McArdle then moved for summary judgment. She argued that Young had not 

exhausted all available administrative remedies for his claims and that he otherwise 

failed to show that he suffered an objectively serious medical condition to which she 

was deliberately indifferent. The district judge granted McArdle’s motion. The judge 

concluded that although Young exhausted his available remedies and a jury could 

decide that Young’s leg pain was objectively serious, there was no genuine dispute that 

McArdle responded appropriately. 
No. 21-2347 Page 3 

On appeal, Young first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion 

for recruited counsel. We review the district court’s denial of the motion for counsel for 

an abuse of discretion. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

Young maintains that he needed counsel because his case involves complex 

medical issues, and counsel would have found an expert witness to testify that

McArdle’s actions fell outside the range of accepted professional judgment. But the 

district court applied the proper legal standard, see id., and determined that the case 

was not too complex for Young to effectively represent himself. We see no error in the 

court’s assessment. While “constitutional claims involving the defendant’s state of mind

... may entail meaningful complexity,” Perry v. Sims, 990 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir. 2021), 

Young has demonstrated the ability to litigate his relatively straightforward case. 

Young’s filings present cogent arguments, reflecting his understanding of the

deliberate-indifference standard, the facts, and the information in his medical records.

Further, Young never argued before the district court that he needed counsel to obtain 

an expert witness, so that argument is waived. See Mahran v. Advoc. Christ Med. Ctr., 

12 F.4th 708, 713 (7th Cir. 2021).

Young next argues that summary judgment was improper. He contends that the 

district court erred in concluding that McArdle did not disregard his serious medical 

condition. Because McArdle provided no sworn evidence regarding her state of mind 

when treating him, Young says, the district court did not have sufficient information to 

make a determination at summary judgment. 

We review the decision to grant a motion for summary judgment de novo. 

Lockett, 937 F.3d at 1022. A medical provider’s choice of treatment violates the 

Constitution when “no minimally competent professional would have so responded 

under those circumstances.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014). 

Here, no reasonable jury could find that McArdle deliberately ignored Young’s 

leg pain, even in the absence of sworn evidence about McArdle’s state of mind. While 

on call on March 22, McArdle approved treatments including a wrap, an extra pillow, 

and pain medication. To be sure, McArdle rescheduled the March 26 appointment 

based on her erroneous conclusion that Young already had been seen on March 15 for

his leg pain. But McArdle rescheduled the appointment for less than three weeks later, 

and at that visit, she provided additional treatments, including capsaicin cream, a 

heated compress, and a referral to physical therapy. She also ordered X-rays in June, 

which revealed only mild arthritis in Young’s right hip. 
No. 21-2347 Page 4 

Far from ignoring Young’s concerns, McArdle approved numerous treatments 

over the course of several weeks to alleviate Young’s pain and pinpoint its cause. 

See Wilson v. Adams, 901 F.3d 816, 821–22 (7th Cir. 2018) (affirming summary judgment 

where “totality” of care did not show deliberate indifference). There is no evidence that 

McArdle’s approach significantly deviated from appropriate medical judgment. 

See Pyles, 771 F.3d at 409. Moreover, Young has not shown that the short delay between 

March 26 and April 15 worsened his injury or caused him unnecessary pain. See Wilson, 

901 F.3d at 822 (explaining that claim involving delayed treatment requires showing 

that the delay “exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged pain”). The delay was 

minimal, it afforded the treatments prescribed on March 22 an opportunity to take 

effect, and Young’s underlying condition was not serious. 

 We make two final observations. First, throughout Young’s brief, he erroneously 

refers to Maxim Physician Resources as a defendant. Young did not sue Maxim 

Physician Resources, and it has not participated in this case. Second, Young asks that 

we review, what he calls, his state-law medical-negligence claims. But, to the extent 

Young ever raised claims along those lines, he abandoned them in his amended 

complaint, and he does not argue that the district court erred by not addressing them. 

AFFIRMED