Opinion ID: 2974967
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Treatment before hospital admission

Text: Loggins claims he was forced to waive his right to press charges against Russell before he was taken to the Hospital.1 However, Loggins stated in his deposition that the jail statement was given freely and voluntarily before he went to the Hospital. Even if Loggins was detained prior to being taken to the Hospital, his claim fails because he suffered no harm. A claim for failure to provide medical care for the time lapse between the incident and being taken to the hospital is not supported. Loggins fails to establish the objective component of the 1 The form Loggins signed was a “Division of Corrections Statement of Witness” form. The only right Loggins waived was his Miranda rights regarding any criminal conduct he discussed in the statement. The statement written by Loggins merely states “I am not pressing charges at this time.” Loggins stated in his deposition the only charges he was choosing not to press were internal jail violations. Moreover, Loggins went to the City Prosecutor after he was released from jail and filed a criminal complaint against Russell. -9- No. 05-4135 James Loggins v. Franklin County Ohio, et al deliberate indifference test because he cannot show the alleged deprivation is sufficiently serious. This Court examines the seriousness of the deprivation by looking at the effects of the delay in treatment. See Napier v. Madison County, 238 F.3d 739, 742 (6th Cir. 2001)(indicating an inmate who complains that delay in medical treatment rose to a constitutional violation must place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of the delay in medical treatment to succeed (quoting Hill v. Dekalb Reg’l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir. 1994))). The evidence shows the thirty to forty-five minute delay before Loggins was taken to the Hospital had no detrimental effect on Loggins’ health. Loggins’ treating physician stated the treatment and outcome would have been the same if the injury would have occurred at the Hospital. Therefore, because Loggins cannot establish an essential element for his claim, summary judgment on Loggins’ claim for the events prior to his hospitalization was proper.