Luna v. Gentry et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
RONNIE ANTHONY LUNA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 4:22-cv-04048-SOH-BAB
NURSE TAMMY FOWLER 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant Tammy Fowler’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
127). Plaintiff responded. (ECF No. 133). Defendant replied. (ECF No. 134). Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United
States District Judge, referred the instant motion to the undersigned for the purpose of making a
Report and Recommendation. 	For the reasons stated herein, the Court recommends Defendant
Fowler’s Motion be granted and this case be dismissed.
I. 	PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND0F
1
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP
Motion”) on June 1, 2022. (ECF Nos. 1, 2). The Court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Motion on the same
day. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff subsequently filed two amended complaints, (ECF Nos. 6, 8), and one
Motion to Supplement, (ECF No. 79). The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement and
1 This case has a long and convoluted procedural background much of which is irrelevant to
Defendant Fowler’s instant Motion. Accordingly, the Court includes here only those filings
which are relevant.
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
held the Motion to Supplement, (ECF No. 79), and Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 8) would be read together to state all of Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 84).
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Dick Conner Correctional Center in Hominy,
Oklahoma. 	His claims in this lawsuit stem from alleged civil rights violations while he was
incarcerated in the Sevier County Detention Center (“SCDC”), in DeQueen, Arkansas, as a pretrial
detainee. (ECF No. 8).
Defendant Fowler initially filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on July 5, 2023.
(ECF No. 87). 	The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Fowler’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings on February 7, 2025. (ECF No. 110). This left, as the sole remaining
claim, Plaintiff’s claim of denial of medical care, asserted in his Supplement at Claim Three,
against Defendant Fowler in her individual capacity only.1F
2 Id.
In Plaintiff’s Claim Three, Plaintiff claims Defendant Fowler denied him medical care.
(ECF No. 79, p. 13). Plaintiff alleges that his hands began swelling on April 8, 2022. He submitted
medical requests on this issue six times between May 30, 2022 and September 23, 2022. Plaintiff’s
pain was severe and the swelling intense. After seven months, Defendant Fowler told Plaintiff he
did not have arthritis, but an x-ray “a few days later” changed Defendant Fowler’s opinion. She
then diagnosed him with arthritis. Plaintiff states: “I endured 7 months of pain and torture due to
this delay of treatment and diagnosis.” Id.
Defendant Fowler filed her Motion for Summary Judgment on August 30, 2024 along with
a Brief and Statement of Undisputed Facts. (ECF Nos. 127, 128, 129). The Court ordered Plaintiff
to respond. (ECF No. 130). Plaintiff failed to respond by the deadline and the Court entered an
2 The Court also previously dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against all other Defendants by
Ordered dated September 19, 2024. (ECF No. 131).
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 132). Plaintiff filed his Response on October 2, 2024. (ECF No.
133). Defendants replied on October 7, 2024. (ECF No. 134).
In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Fowler argues: (1) Plaintiff was not
denied or delayed any medical care; (2) Plaintiff cannot show Defendant Fowler was deliberately
indifferent to any serious medical need; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to show an injury in fact. (ECF
No. 129).
In his Response, Plaintiff argues the material facts are in dispute and he was continually
shown deliberate indifference to his serious medical need of arthritis. (ECF No. 133).
Defendant Fowler replied arguing Plaintiff failed to meet the procedural requirements of
Local Rule 56.1 and file a separate Statement of Disputed Facts. Further, Plaintiff failed to meet
his burden of showing material facts in dispute. (ECF No. 134).
II. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND2F
3
Defendant Fowler testified in her Declaration that she is a licensed practical nurse, licensed
to practice in the State of Arkansas. 	She is employed by Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC and
provided medical care to Plaintiff while he was an inmate at the SCDC. 	(ECF No. 127-1).
3 In support of her Motion, Defendant Fowler produced: (1) her own sworn Declaration; (2)
Plaintiff’s medical records from the SCDC; (3) Plaintiff’s grievances and medical request from the
SCDC; (4) and the sworn Declaration of Anthony Carter, APRN. 	(ECF No. 127). 	However,
Defendant Fowler did not produce the affidavit of any records custodian verifying the records she
attached to her Motion, and in her Declaration, which the records are attached, she failed to testify
to the documents authenticity or that they were kept in the regular course of business. (ECF No.
127-1). Summary judgment evidence “must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit made
on personal knowledge setting forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence or a deposition
that meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). Otherwise, the Court may
not consider it. 	Edwards v. Hiland Roberts Dairy, Co., 860 F.3d 1121, 1127 (8th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, Plaintiff challenges the records in his response arguing
they were altered and he did not receive said documents through discovery. (ECF No. 133, p. 8,
n. 1). 	Accordingly, the Court will not consider the medical records or medical requests and
grievances from the SCDC herein, but the Court will consider Defendant Fowler and Carter’s
sworn statements contained in their Declarations.
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Defendant Fowler evaluated Plaintiff on May 31, 2022 for the first time regarding his hand pain.
At this time, Plaintiff requested “stronger” Tylenol. Defendant stated Plaintiff’s hands were not
swollen or red and had no obvious injuries. Defendant Fowler explained to Plaintiff he did not
have a script for Tylenol and planned for him to see a medical provider. Id. at 2.
On June 20, 2022, Defendant Fowler consulted medical provider Anthony Carter, APRN
regarding Plaintiff’s hand pain. 	Carter placed an order for Plaintiff to begin Meloxicam and
Defendant Fowler ordered this Meloxicam from the pharmacy. Defendant also provided Plaintiff
with a wrist brace. Id. Defendant Fowler also explains the laws of Arkansas do not allow her to
“stock” medicines. Instead, she must have a prescription particular to an inmate before she can
provide him any medication. Id.
On June 21, 2022, Defendant Fowler informed Plaintiff his Meloxicam was ordered. On
June 25, 2022, Plaintiff reported to Defendant Fowler that the Meloxicam was not working. 	In
response, his prescription was changed by “the provider” to Naproxen 500 mg twice a day to treat
his pain. Id.
On July 10, 2022, Defendant Fowler requested Plaintiff be brought to medical for
evaluation on his medication. Plaintiff was not brought to medical and Defendant Fowler was not
provided a reason for this failure. Id. Also on July 10, 2022, Defendant Fowler contacted APRN
Carter to report Plaintiff’s continued complaints of swelling in his hands and ineffectiveness of the
medication in treating his pain. 	APRN Carter ordered x-rays of Plaintiff’s hands. 	Id. at 3.
Defendant Fowler then testified she “implemented Dr. Absolom Tilley’s x-ray orders, and
[Plaintiff’s] x-rays were taken on July 11, 2022. Id. The Court is unsure whether Dr. Absolom
Tilley or APRN Carter ordered the x-rays as Defendant Fowler previously testified that Anthony
Carter, APRN ordered the x-rays. Id.
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Defendant Fowler went on to testify that Plaintiff’s x-ray results were normal for his left
hand and showed “minimal osteoarthritis” in his right hand. Id. Defendant Fowler conveyed these
x-ray results to Dr. Tilly, the Medical Director for the SCDC. He did not provide any new orders
for Plaintiff. Id. Defendant Fowler then informed Plaintiff of his x-ray results. Id.
On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff declined any further morning doses of his Naproxen and
signed a waiver to discontinue this medication. Id. However, on September 18, 2022, Plaintiff
started back on Naproxen 500 mg twice daily. Id.
Defendant Fowler also testified she never told Plaintiff he did not have arthritis, and she
never prevented Plaintiff from accessing higher levels of medical provider care. Defendant Fowler
further explained she cannot prescribe medication, diagnose medical conditions, or determine the
treatment plan for any given patient. Instead, it is her job as a Licensed Practical Nurse to observe,
intervene, and evaluate. Id. Additionally, Defendant Fowler testified she gave Plaintiff care within
the appropriate standard of care, and did not deprive, deny, or delay Plaintiff treatment options or
access to care. Furthermore, Defendant Fowler testified she did not ignore or disregard Plaintiff’s
medical needs. Finally, she testified she believes the medical care prescribed and ordered by the
nurse practitioner and doctor were appropriate. She never believed Plaintiff was suffering from a
more serious condition than what was already being treated. Id.
Defendant Fowler also submitted the sworn Declaration of Anthony Carter, APRN. In his
Declaration, Carter testifies he is a nurse practitioner employed by Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC.
Carter provides medical services to inmates at the SCDC and he treated Plaintiff. (ECF No. 127-
4). 	Carter testified he treated Plaintiff’s complaints of hand pain with pain medication and that
this pain was related to mild arthritis. Carter specifies that he made this diagnosis with “a degree
of medical probability.” Id. Carter also testified he never believed Plaintiff was suffering from
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
anything more serious than mild arthritis, and the care and treatment Plaintiff received at the SCDC
was “appropriate, reasonable, and within the standard of care.” Id. Lastly, Carter testified:
I believe it is more probably than not that [Plaintiff] did not suffer any injury or permanent
damage due to the treatment he received at SCDC. 	Nor was [Plaintiff] deprived of any
other treatment opportunities.
Id.
Through his own Affidavit, Plaintiff disputes many of the assertions made in Defendant
Fowler and Anthony Carter’s Declaration. Specifically, Plaintiff first testifies he was diagnosed
with Rheumatoid Arthritis on September 24, 2019 by Dr. Christy Gallegor, and that Anthony
Carter never “personally” evaluated or treated Plaintiff for his arthritis. (ECF No. 133, p. 11).
Plaintiff further testified that when he saw Defendant Fowler on April 10, 2022 he showed
her his swollen and discolored hands and informed her he was in a lot of pain. Plaintiff explained
to Defendant Fowler he was previously diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis and signed an
Authorization For Disclosure And Release for her to get his medical history. 	Id. 	Plaintiff also
requested he be allowed to wear gloves his family brought him. Defendant Fowler told Plaintiff
she would get back with him. Id.
On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff requested to see Defendant Fowler through a jailer, Ms.
Higgins. Ms. Higgins told Plaintiff that he must put in a sick call but Plaintiff stated he could not
put in a sick call because his hands were swollen and painful. Id.
On May 31, 2022, Plaintiff saw Defendant Fowler again for his hands. He again showed
her how swollen and discolored they were. Plaintiff explained to her the medication she was giving
him was not helping his hands. Plaintiff also told Defendant Fowler he was having trouble picking
up a spoon and wiping himself. He requested different medication to help the swelling and pain.
He also requested to see the medical provider and have his gloves from his family. 	Id. at 12.
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Plaintiff does not state what medications he was receiving for his hands in May 2022, only that it
was not working to relieve the pain and swelling. Id.
On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff had an evaluation via video with a medical provider, perhaps
Anthony Carter, but he is unsure. Plaintiff told this provider how much pain he was in and showed
him his swollen and discolored hands. He also told this provider about his previous Rheumatoid
Arthritis treatment and about his gloves from his family. This provider told Plaintiff he had not
seen any previous medical records and there was nothing he could do for Plaintiff. Id.
Plaintiff does not dispute the provider that evaluated him on June 20, 2022 ordered x-rays
of his hands and he received the x-rays on July 11, 2022. He states he spoke to Defendant Fowler
after the x-ray and she told him to wait until the x-ray results come back. 	She also looked up
Baylor Scott and White Hospital regarding his medical history records and Defendant Fowler told
him she would call them about his medical history records. Id. Defendant Fowler did not mention
anything about Plaintiff having arthritis on July 11, 2022. Id.
On September 15, 2022, Plaintiff testified he again requested to see Defendant Fowler
through Jailer Higgins. Jailer Higgins told Plaintiff to put in a sick call. Plaintiff states he could
not put in a sick call because his hands were too swollen and painful. Defendant Fowler also again
denied Plaintiff his gloves from his family. Id. at 12-13.
Plaintiff testified, on September 20, 2022, he requested to see Defendant Fowler because
his hands had been swollen and purple for a week. Defendant Fowler initially told Plaintiff there
was nothing on his x-rays and that is why she never called him back in to discuss. 	Plaintiff
informed Defendant Fowler the medication was not working. Defendant Fowler asked Plaintiff
why he stopped taking the medication prescribed and he explained because it was not working.
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Then Defendant Fowler explained that Plaintiff’s x-ray did show he had arthritis in his left hand.
Id. at 13.
Finally, Plaintiff denies he was ever provided with a wrist brace, and Plaintiff never
disputes he received pain medication during all times in issue here, only that the medications he
received were not as effective as he wished. Id. at 13.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the record "shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). "Once
a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the
non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine
issue of material fact exists.” Nat’l Bank of Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir.
1999).
The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "They must show there is sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." Nat’l Bank, 165 F.3d at 607. "A case founded
on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment." Id. at 610.
“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.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380
(2007).
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Under § 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his personal capacity, or in his official
capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant in both his personal and his official
capacities. 	The type of conduct that is actionable and the type of defense available depend on
whether the claim is asserted against a defendant in his official or individual capacity. See Gorman
v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). 	“Claims against
individuals in their official capacities are equivalent to claims against the entity for which they
work; they require proof that a policy or custom of the entity violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the
only type of immunity available is one belonging to the entity itself.” Id. Personal capacity claims
“are those which allege personal liability for individual actions by officials in the course of their
duties; these claims do not require proof of any policy and qualified immunity may be raised as a
defense” to these individual capacity claims. Id. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff
must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law, and that the actor violated a right,
privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution. 	West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1999).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
As an initial matter the Court notes Defendant Fowler’s procedural arguments that Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Local Rules and submit a separate statement of disputed facts along with
his Response. 	The Court, however, giving Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings the benefit of the doubt,
considers that Plaintiff’s sworn affidavit attached to his response with numbered paragraphs
containing each of his factual disputes satisfies the Local Rules.
In prisoner litigation, courts in the Eighth Circuit analyze denial of medical care claims
under the deliberate indifference standard of the Eighth Amendment. See e.g., Morris v. Cradduck,
954 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020) (pretrial detainee has the same rights to medical care under
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
the Due Process Clause as an inmate has under the Eighth Amendment). 	The Court therefore
examines Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth Amendment's deliberate indifference standard. Id.
To succeed on this type of claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he had an objectively
serious medical need, and (2) that the Defendant actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded,
that serious medical need. See Ivey v. Audrain Cty., Mo., 968 F.3d 845, 848 (8th Cir. 2020). “A
serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one
that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s
attention.” Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted).
“To demonstrate that a defendant actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, a serious medical
need, the plaintiff must establish a mental state akin to criminal recklessness: disregarding a known
risk to the [detainee’s] health.” Barton v. Taber, 908 F.3d 1119, 1124 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). 	The Eighth Circuit has stated that this “onerous standard
requires a showing more than negligence, more than even gross negligence, but less than
purposefully causing or knowingly bringing about a substantial risk of serious harm to the inmate.”
Thompson v. King, 730 F.3d 742, 747 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff makes many arguments in his Response regarding what he classifies as
material facts in dispute. However, the facts highlighted by Plaintiff are not material to the Court’s
consideration of whether Defendant Fowler was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical
needs—pain and swelling in his hands. Plaintiff focuses on these facts: (1) it took three months
for him to have the video exam with Carter and x-ray (even though he also argues Carter never
“personally” treated him); (2) Defendant Fowler never requested his medical records from
previous providers; (3) Defendant Fowler did not relay his x-ray results to him for two months; (4)
Defendant Fowler did not believe he had Rheumatoid Arthritis; (5) Defendant Fowler would not
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
allow him his gloves from his family; and (6) Defendant Fowler did not provide him with any hand
or wrist brace.3F
4 (ECF No. 133). While the Court recognizes these facts were likely frustrating to
Plaintiff while he experienced chronic arthritic pain, they do not amount to deliberate indifference
when considered with the undisputed facts herein.
It is undisputed, Defendant Fowler examined Plaintiff on April 10, 2022, May 12, 2022,
and May 31, 2022, . 	(ECF Nos. 124-1, 133). 	Plaintiff also testified he explained to Defendant
Fowler on May 31, 2022 the pain medication she was giving him was not helping his hands. Id.
Thus, Plaintiff does not dispute he was receiving pain medication by May 31, 2022. Plaintiff also
does not dispute that Defendant Fowler contacted the medical provider to have his pain medication
changed on June 20, 2022, and then again on June 21, 2022 when Plaintiff informed Defendant
Fowler he was still not getting relief. Id.
Next, Plaintiff does not dispute he was evaluated via video exam by a medical provider,
maybe Anthony Carter, for his hands on June 20, 2022. 	Plaintiff also does not dispute that
Defendant Fowler also coordinated the x-ray of his hands on July 11, 2022 after such orders were
placed by the medical provider. (ECF No. 133, p. 12).
Finally, Plaintiff does not dispute he was provided with multiple types of pain medication
for his hands and that he refused these medications at times. (ECF No. 113, pp. 11-13). Plaintiff
simply asserts the medication he was provided was not effective in relieving his hand pain.
4 Plaintiff also argues Defendant Fowler was not adequately trained and this shows a policy of
SCDC that violated his Constitutional rights. (ECF No. 133). However, all of Plaintiff’s official
capacity claims against Defendant Fowler were previously dismissed from this case. 	(ECF No.
110). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts in his Response, the pain medication given to him at the SCDC
caused him gallstones and eventually necessitated a surgery to remove his gallbladder. (ECF No.
133). However, this claim was not alleged in his Second Amended Complaint or Supplement and
cannot be raised for the first time in response to summary judgment.
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
It is well settled that “[i]nmates have no constitutional right to receive a particular or
requested course of treatment, and prison doctors remain free to exercise their independent medical
judgment.” Dulany v. Carnaham, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997) (when a record contains
medical records that show treatment was provided and a physicians affidavit stating that the care
provided was adequate, an inmates’ belief that the care she received was inadequate is insufficient
to create a genuine issue of material fact). 	Additionally, mere disagreement with the treatment
provided cannot support a finding of deliberate indifference. 	Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094,
1096 (8th Cir. 2000). 	Instead, the Plaintiff must show the Defendant’s actions were “so
inappropriate as to evidence intentional maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care.”
Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1241. 	Plaintiff has failed to do so here. 	Plaintiff was provided with pain
medication and that medication was adjusted and changed in response to his complaints it was not
effective. The record indicates Plaintiff may have received Tylenol, did receive Meloxicam, and
also Naproxen during the time in issue. (ECF No. 127-1, 133). Plaintiff merely disagrees with
the particular treatment—pain medication—and the rate at which it was provided.
Furthermore, the Constitution does not require detention facilities to provide “perfect, the
best obtainable, or even very good” medical care; rather, it requires the provision of adequate
medical care. 	Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1510 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Johnson v.
Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1013 (7th Cir. 2006) (not entitled to best medical care). “Because society
does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care,’ [a]s long as [the
deliberate indifference threshold] is not crossed ... doctors remain free to exercise their
independent medical judgment.’” Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1239 (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503
U.S. 1, 9 (1992)).
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
Although it took some time for the x-ray to be ordered, one was ordered and its results
examined and eventually explained to Plaintiff. The decision not to order the x-ray sooner was an
exercise in medical judgment which the Court will not second guess. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 107 (1976). 	Further, there is no evidence that failing to receive the x-ray earlier was
detrimental to Plaintiff. 	See Laughlin v. Schriro, 430 F.3d 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2005) (When an
inmate alleges a delay in medical treatment, “the objective seriousness of the deprivation should
also be measured by the effect of delay in treatment. To establish this effect, the inmate must place
verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of delay”). See also
Jenkins v. Cty. of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Constitution does not
require jailers to handle every medical complaint as quickly as each inmate might wish.”).
Similarly, the Court will not second guess the decision to deny Plaintiff his gloves from
home. The record is completely devoid of information on these gloves or their medicinal qualities.
Lastly, to the extent Plaintiff’s argument is that the medical providers missed his diagnosis
of Rheumatoid Arthritis and incorrectly diagnosed him with mild arthritis in only one hand, this
argument also fails to establish a constitutional violation. See Crooks v. Nix, 872 F.2d 800, 805
(8th Cir.1989) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285 (“plaintiff, to make a cognizable §
1983 claim, must allege more than medical malpractice; a prisoner must allege a constitutional
violation of ‘deliberate indifference to a serious medical need’”)
Accordingly, based on the summary judgment record, the Court finds there are no genuine
issue of material facts as to whether Defendant Fowler exhibit deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs, and Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of law.
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend Defendant Fowler’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 127) be GRANTED and this case be dismissed with prejudice.
Referral Status: 	Referral should be terminated with the filing of this Report and
Recommendation.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 31st day of March 2025.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:22-cv-04048-SOH Document 135 Filed 03/31/25 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>