Smith v. Tallant et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CURTIS WAYNE DALE SMITH, JR. 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:23-cv-4111
JANA TALLANT, Howard County Jail Administrator;
JOEY DAVIS, Howard County Detention Center;
and DR. JOAN MCLEAN 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed October 25, 2024, by the
Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
ECF No. 53. Plaintiff Curtis Wayne Dale Smith, Jr. has objected. ECF No. 56. The Court finds
the matter ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a back injury during his arrest. 	While at the Howard
County Detention Center, he alleges that Defendant McLean denied him medical care by refusing
to x-ray his back. In the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53), Judge Comstock recommends
that Separate Defendant Joan McLean’s Motion to Dismiss1 (ECF No. 27) be granted and all
claims against Defendant McLean be dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, Judge Comstock
recommends that Defenant McLean’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32) on the issue
of exhaustion be denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s objections center around his argument that Defendant McLean “denied giving
[him] the proper medical care” when she refused to x-ray his back. ECF No. 56, p. 4. Plaintiff
claims he “needed and wanted x-rays and then was refused x-rays.” 	ECF No. 56, p. 4. 	He
1Judge Comstock treated the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Court will do the same.
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 68 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
“believes” the treatment Dr. McLean provided for his back was inadequate and that he was entitled
to “x-rays not pills.” ECF No. 56, p. 8. Clearly, Plaintiff disagrees with the treatment provided by
Defendant McLean. However, it is well settled that a “prisoner’s mere difference of opinion over
matters of expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment fail[s] to rise to the level of a
constitutional violation.” Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the
Court agrees with Judge Comstock that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for denial of
medical care against Defendant McLean.
Upon de novo review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the report and recommendation (ECF
No. 53) in toto. Accordingly, Defendant McLean’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27), interpreted
as a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s denial of medical
care 	claim 	against 	Defendant 	McLean 	in 	both 	her 	individual 	and 	official 	capacities 	is
DISMISSED. Defendant McLean is DISMISSED from this case. Further, Defendant McLean’s
Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion (ECF No. 32) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 31st day of March, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cv-04111-SOH-CDC Document 68 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>