Bryant v. State of Illinois et al

Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROY BRYANT, #N41534,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PERCY MYERS, M.D..,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 23-cv-2541-RJD
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendant Percy Myers, M.D. (Docs. 43 and 44). 	Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 45) and
Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 46). 	As explained further, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) and filed this suit
pursuant to 42 USC §1983. 	Doc. 1. 	In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he injured his back
and knees in early 2023 when he slipped and fell in the shower at Centralia Correctional Center
(“Centralia”). 	Id., p. 7. 	Plaintiff contends that Dr. Myers treated his injuries with deliberate
indifference, causing Plaintiff to suffer with chronic pain. 	Id. 	After the Court conducted a
threshold review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, Plaintiff proceeded on one Eighth Amendment
claim against Dr. Myers. 	Doc. 17.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can demonstrate “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. C IV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986); see also Ruffin-
Case 3:23-cv-02541-RJD Document 47 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 6
Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). 	The
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any genuine issue of material
fact. 	Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 	Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment is
made, the adverse party “must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). 	A genuine issue of material fact exists
when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248). 	In considering a summary judgment motion, the district court views the facts in the light
most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party. 	Apex
Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s deposition testimony
Plaintiff lives in the infirmary at Centralia. 	Doc. 1, p. 13. 	He lived there prior to the
events at issue in this case. 	Id. 	In the infirmary, he sees a doctor weekly. 	Id. 	Plaintiff fell in
the shower room on March 18, 2023. 	Doc. 45-1, p. 7. 	He fell on his back and hip, then turned
and hit his knee. 	Id. 	An officer and a porter had to help him up off the shower floor. 	Id., p. 8.
A nurse came into the shower room and asked him if he was all right. 	Id., pp. 7-8. 	He told the
nurse where he was hurting. Id., p. 8. 	Plaintiff was able to walk, but it was painful. 	Id., p .16.
He received a wrap and a brace for his knee. 	Id., p. 16-17. 	His knee was “discolored a little.”
Id., p. 17. 	At some point in the next nine days, Plaintiff complained to nurses about still being in
pain, and they gave him Tylenol. 	Id., p. 8.
Plaintiff saw Dr. Myers on March 28, 2023. 	Id. 	Plaintiff told Dr. Myers that he “slipped
and fell in the shower” and hurt his “back and hip and [] knee.” 	Id., p. 17. 	Dr. Myers looked at
his knee and said “it wasn’t discolored so therefore there was nothing wrong with [Plaintiff’s]
knee.” 	Id., p. 8. 	Dr. Myers otherwise provided no treatment for or examination of Plaintiff’s
injuries. 	Id., pp. 8-9. 	Plaintiff told Dr. Myers that his pain was “about an 8.” 	Id., p. 17.
Case 3:23-cv-02541-RJD Document 47 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 6
Plaintiff saw Dr. Myers again on April 4, 2023. 	Id., p. 9. 	Dr. Myers told him that he was “getting
old” and “that because [Plaintiff’s] knee wasn’t discolored, there was nothing wrong with
[Plaintiff’s] knee.” 	Id., p. 9. 	Dr. Myers did not recommend any treatment or instructions on
follow-up care. 	Plaintiff asked Dr. Myers to order an x-ray, but Dr. Myers refused. 	Id.
On April 30, 2023, Plaintiff fell on a concrete sidewalk. 	Id., p. 10. 	He thinks that he may
have been using a cane at that time. 	Id. 	He underwent x-ray imaging of his wrist and shoulder.
Id., pp. 10-11. 	The pain in his back, knee, and hip was not worse after the second fall. 	Id., p. 11.
Any time Plaintiff saw Dr. Myers after the March 18, 2023 fall, Plaintiff complained about
pain in his back, hip, and knee. 	Id., p. 12. 	Plaintiff’s back, hip, and knee are “always hurting”
him. 	Id. 	No one has ever told him that he suffered an acute injury from his fall in the shower.
Id., p. 13. 	He was still able to bend and move his back, hip, and knee after the fall, though it was
painful to do so. 	Id., p. 14. 	Dr. Myers never performed a physical exam on Plaintiff’s back, hip,
or knee. 	Id., p. 17. 	On at least five occasions, Plaintiff requested that Dr. Myers order x-rays;
Dr. Myers refused. 	Id., p. 18.
At the time of his deposition on March 26, 2025, Plaintiff was taking Tramadol for his
pain. 	Id., p. 15. 	The pain from his fall has never resolved. 	Id., pp. 15, 18. 	Since the March
18, 2023 fall, Plaintiff has walked with a limp. 	Id., p. 17. 	He favors his left side. He cannot walk
“as far as [he] want[s] to” because of the pain. 	Id., p .18. 	He has to use a wheelchair. 	Id. ,p .21.
He also has numbness in his knee. 	Id.
Plaintiff’s medical records and affidavit by Dr. Myers
In his affidavit, Dr. Myers explained that the Ace wrap Plaintiff received from the nurse
on March 18, 2023 “can help reduce swelling and potentially ease pain.” 	Doc. 44-4, ¶10. 	Dr.
Myers saw Plaintiff three times between March 18, 2023 and May 30, 2023. 	Id., ¶¶12, 13, 14,
17. 	During that time, Dr. Myers did not offer any treatment or recommendations to Plaintiff other
than Tylenol for his back, hip, and knee pain. 	Id. 	On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff told Dr. 	Myers
Case 3:23-cv-02541-RJD Document 47 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 6
that the Tylenol was not helping in him. 	Id., ¶17. 	Dr. Myers ordered an x-ray of Plaintiff’s right
knee that “revealed no acute abnormalities” and “the surrounding soft tissues are normal.” 	Id.,
¶18 Doc. 44-3, p. 25.
Plaintiff saw Dr. Glen Babich on July 7, 2023. 	Id., ¶20. 	Dr. Babich ordered x-rays of
Plaintiff’s hip and lumbar spine. 	Id. 	The x-ray imaging on the hip showed on acute fracture or
dislocation. 	Id., ¶22. 	The x-ray imaging of the lumbar spine showed “no acute fracture.
Consider MRI if symptoms are chronic or continue to persist.” 	Doc. 44-3, p. 22. 	Dr. Babich
saw plaintiff again on September 28, 2023 and diagnosed him with degenerative joint disease and
degenerative disc disease. 	Doc. 44-4, ¶27. 	Dr. Myers explains that “degenerative joint disease
is a condition where the cartilage that cushions the ends of bones in a joint wear down over time.
It can lead to pain, stiffness, and reduced joint mobility.” 	Id., ¶28. 	Degenerative disc disease is
the “progressive deterioration of the discs between the vertebrae in the spine, often associated with
aging.” 	Id., ¶7.
In November 2023, Dr. Babich prescribed Duloxetine, a medication that is used to treat
pain and stiffness related to “muscles and bones” or diabetes. 	Id., ¶30. 	In December 2023, Dr.
Babich prescribed Tramadol to Plaintiff. 	Id., ¶31. 	Tramadol is “an opiod pain medication used
to treat moderate to moderately severe pain.” 	Id., ¶32.
Dr. Myers saw Plaintiff on two occasions in January 2024. 	Id., ¶¶33, 34. 	Dr. Myers
ordered him to increase activity and approved his use of a walker. 	Id. 	Dr. Myers saw Plaintiff
one last time in February 2024. 	He diagnosed Plaintiff with obesity, COPD, osteoarthritis, and
chronic pain and instructed him to continue present medications. 	Id., ¶35.
Discussion
Plaintiff contends that Dr. Myers violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment. 	To prevail against Dr. Myers, Plaintiff must establish first that his
pain was an “objectively serious medical condition” and second, that Dr. Myers subjectively knew
Case 3:23-cv-02541-RJD Document 47 Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 6
that the pain posed a “substantial risk of serious harm” to Plaintiff and nonetheless disregarded
that risk. 	Stocktown v. Milwaukee Cty, 44 F. 4th 605, 614-15 (7th Cir. 2022) (internal citations
and quotations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s deposition testimony is sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Plaintiff’s
pain was an objectively serious medical condition. 	Construing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, the Court assumes that Dr. Myers did not examine Plaintiff’s knee or order
any type of treatment on March 28, 2023 and told Plaintiff he was just “getting old.” 	Summary
judgment is nonetheless warranted in favor of Dr. Myers because no evidence suggests that
Plaintiff “suffered harm at [Dr. Myers’] hands” on March 28, 2023 or later. 	Gabb v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc. 945 F.3d 1027, 1033-34 (7th. Cir. 2019). 	Plaintiff was already living in the
infirmary at Centralia at the time of the fall and was monitored weekly by a physician. 	He had
access to assistive devices. 	Nothing in the record suggests that a specific type of examination,
earlier x-rays, or any another type of radiology or diagnostic tool would have led to a different
course of treatment. 	No evidence indicates that prescribed pain medication would have been
helpful; in fact, Dr. Babich has prescribed two different types of pain medication (including an
opiod), and Plaintiff testified that he is still in pain.
In short, no evidence points to action that Dr. Myers should have taken to alleviate
Plaintiff’s pain. 	Id. 	Perhaps he could have ordered an MRI (as mentioned in the x-ray report),
or referred Plaintiff to some type of specialist, but the undersigned could only speculate as to
whether these actions would have resulted in Plaintiff’s relief. 	The jury cannot be left “entirely
to its own imagination about what could have been done.” 	Id. 	Moreover, the Eighth Amendment
does not entitle Plaintiff to specific care. 	Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954
(7th Cir. 2019) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 	Summary judgment is therefore
warranted in favor of Dr. Myers.
Case 3:23-cv-02541-RJD Document 47 Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 6
Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claim
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
accordingly. 	All pending deadlines and hearings are VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 26, 2025
s/ 	Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-02541-RJD Document 47 Filed 11/26/25 Page 6 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>