Bayler v. Wellpath LLC et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
KRISTIN LIN BAYLER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06023-SOH-MEF
WELLPATH LLC;
DR. GUY HENRY
(M.D. Medical Provider, Ouachita River Correctional Unit);
DR. THOMAS DANIEL
(M.D. Medical Provider, Ouachita River Correctional Unit) 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently
before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 31).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on February 29, 2024.
(ECF No. 2). 	It was transferred to this District on March 1, 2024. 	(ECF No. 5). 	On March 5,
2024, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to address
deficiencies in his initial Complaint. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff submitted his Amended Complaint
on March 18, 2024. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of
Correction (ADC) Grimes Unit, but his claims concern the ADC Ouachita River Unit, which is
located within the Western District of Arkansas.
Plaintiff raises five claims in his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 12). For Claim One, he
alleges that between May 23, 2023, through September 5, 2023, he did not receive any medication
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
for his Crohn’s disease. (Id. at 4). He names Wellpath and Dr. Henry as Defendants for this claim.
(Id.). 	He alleges this was the result of Wellpath making the decision to change the medication
given to all inmate Crohn’s patients from Humira to Yusimry, without having the Yusimry
available for immediate use. (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Henry did nothing to remedy
his Crohn’s symptoms during this time, resulting in him having to endure “constant abdominal
pains, nausea, vomiting, blood in [his] stools, difficulty swallowing solids and psychological
distress.” 	(Id. at 5). 	Plaintiff proceeds against both Defendants in their official and individual
capacities for this claim. 	In support of his official capacity claim, he alleges that Wellpath’s
decision to replace Humira with Yusimry caused his denial and delay of treatment by Dr. Henry
because the Yusimry was not readily available for immediate use. (Id.).
For Claim Two, Plaintiff names all three Defendants in the case. 	(ECF No. 12 at 6).
Plaintiff alleges that on July 26, 2023, Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel refused to refer him to a free-
world “gastrologist” for care even though both of them were unqualified to treat him for his
Crohn’s disease. (Id.). This denial included a refusal to refer him for a colonoscopy, even though
he is at risk for colon cancer and a polyp was found and removed on October 17, 2020. 	(Id.).
Plaintiff alleges this inaction led to “his continual pain and suffering and psychological distress
among other Crohn’s Disease complications.” (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants in their
official and individual capacities for this claim. (Id. at 7). 	As to his official capacity claim, he
alleges that Wellpath LLC has company directives that insist that their medical employees “save
money by performing low cost treatment and minimal treatment options for patients who are
incarcerated.” (Id.).
For Claim Three, Plaintiff names all Defendants and identifies the date of the claim as
January 17, 2023. (ECF No. 12 at 7). Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Henry prescribed him naproxen
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
and Keppra to treat his Crohn’s disease abdominal pain, while Dr. Daniel prescribed him
mesalamine to treat his Crohn’s. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that the naproxen and mesalamine causes
him to suffer gastritis0F
1 and severe pain. (Id.). Plaintiff further alleges that Keppra is designed to
treat seizures, not abdominal pain. 	Thus, both Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel prescribed him
medications that were ineffective or damaging. 	(Id.). 	As a result, he had to endure pain and
suffering. (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official and individual capacities
for this claim. 	He repeats his prior official capacity claim that Wellpath company policy and
practice of utilizing low-cost care was behind the decision to give him ineffective or damaging
medication. (Id. at 8, 13).
For Claim Four, Plaintiff names all Defendants and he identifies the dates as January 17,
2023, and “about Feb. 2022.” (ECF No. 12 at 9). Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel
refused to prescribe him effective pain medication. 	(Id.). 	Instead, he alleges that they both
prescribed him Tylenol 500 mg, which provided “zero relief in pain treatment.” (Id.). He alleges
both Defendants “remained indifferent” despite his repeated requests for a stronger grade pain
medication.” He alleges that, as a result, he suffered from constant Crohn’s disease pain, and he
was placed on “Treatment percuation” for attempting suicide to try to end his pain and suffering
and psychological distress. (Id. at 10). Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official
and individual capacities for this claim. 	For his official capacity claim, Plaintiff alleges that
Wellpath employees, Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel, had a custom and practice to not prescribe narcotic
medication to younger inmate patients “because they assumed any narcotics prescribed would be
abused.” (Id.). Plaintiff alleges this is not ethical medical practice. (Id.). 	He further alleges that
1 Plaintiff stated “gastroitis.”
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
they denied him “narcotics grade pain medicine based upon a stereotype of young inmates being
drug abusers.” (Id.).
For Claim Five, Plaintiff identifies the date of July 25, 2023, and he names all three
Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Henry and Dr. Daneil refused to give him a medical script
for a Crohn’s diet, instead ordering a high protein diet. (ECF No. 12 at 11). Plaintiff alleges the
high protein diet consists of double portions of the standard ADC diet. (Id.). He further alleges
that much of the standard ADC diet is comprised of foods which a Crohn’s patient cannot eat, such
as lentils, beans, corn-based foods, raw fruits and vegetables, and nuts. (Id.). As a result, he alleges
that he either had to starve or eat the food and suffer when the food made his Crohn’s disease
worse. 	(Id. at 11-12). 	Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official and individual
capacities for this claim. (Id. at 12). In support of his official capacity claim, he alleges that Dr.
Henry and Dr. Daniel refused to order him a Crohn’s disease diet because they believed “it would
be unfair to other inmates if I received special treatment and was able to eat food that was not
available to the other inmates.” (Id.).
Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive, and other damages. (ECF No. 12 at 13). He asks
for $11,000,000.00 in compensatory damages, with attorney’s fees, and federal, state, and local
taxes paid on the award. 	He asks that Dr. Henry and Dr. Henry have their medical licenses
permanently revoked, and that Wellpath LLC be banned from doing business in Arkansas. (Id.).
He seeks a Court Order directing that he receives free-world G.I. specialist doctor medical care to
treat his Crohn’s disease, a Crohn’s disease diet while in the ADC, and “sufficient narcotics grade
pain medicine for the remainder of my incarceration within Arkansas Division of Correction.”
(Id.).
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support, and Statement of
Undisputed Facts on October 21, 2024. (ECF Nos. 31, 32, 33). They argue Plaintiff’s Crohn’s
disease was appropriately treated; staff appropriately consulted with an infectious disease
specialist; appropriate medications were ordered; Plaintiff always had an active order for biologic
Crohn’s medications; the change to Yusimry occurred at the recommendation of an outside
infectious disease specialist; and there was no clinical indication for a high/protein calorie diet.
(ECF No. 32). Defendants rely heavily on the Affidavit of Donna Shipley, M.D. (Id.).
On December 13, 2024, Defendant Wellpath LLC filed a Notice of Bankruptcy and a copy
of the Amended Interim Order Enforcing the Automatic Stay entered by the Honorable Alfredo R.
Perez, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on
November 12, 2024. 	(ECF No. 43). The bankruptcy case number is 24-90533 (ARP). 	In the
Interim Order, the Stay was extended to Non-Debtor Defendants. 	Pursuant to the Bankruptcy
Court’s Order, this case was stayed and administratively terminated on December 13, 2024. (ECF
No. 44).
On May 22, 2025, Defendants filed a Status Report on the bankruptcy proceedings. (ECF
No. 45). They explained that the Bankruptcy Court had confirmed the Plan of Reorganization (the
“Plan”) as of May 9, 2025, and that the previously ordered litigation stay had been lifted. (Id.).
See also In re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., No. 24-90533 (Bankr. S.D. Tx. May 1, 2025) (ECF No.
2,596). This Court subsequently ordered that the litigation stay in this case be lifted, and that the
Wellpath Defendants show cause as to the effect of the Plan on Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 46).
The WellPath Defendants filed a response on June 19, 2025, saying that the Plan permanently
enjoins Plaintiff from commencing or continuing any action against WellPath, LLC, and that
Plaintiff had opted out of the third-party releases in the Plan with respect to his individual capacity
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
claims against Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel. (ECF No. 47). Accordingly, Plaintiff could proceed in
this Court for his individual capacity causes of action against these Wellpath employees. (Id.).
On August 27, 2025, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit his Response
to the Summary Judgment Motion. (ECF No. 49). Plaintiff received an extension of time to do
so, and filed his Response documents several days past the extended deadline on October 7, 2025.
(ECF Nos. 52, 53). Plaintiff argues he has raised a genuine issue of material fact as pointed out in
his disputed facts, and he asks that the Defendants’ Motion be denied. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff
cited to no documents, and he provided no exhibits with his Response. He does cite to documents
and provide exhibits with his Statement of Disputed Facts. (ECF No. 53).
One of Plaintiff’s key disputes is that he never saw Nurse Practitioner Davis at Regional
One Health, Infectious Disease Clinic, in Memphis, Tennessee in person. 	Instead, he states the
outside consults were performed by telemedicine. (ECF No. 53 at 1-2, ¶¶ 4, 11). He argues this
is a violation of state law. (Id. at ¶ 4).
Regarding Plaintiff’s Claim One, Plaintiff does not dispute he received a prescription for
the continuation of the biologic Crohn’s medication Humira on April 5, 2023. (ECF No. 53 at 3,
¶ 20). Plaintiff concedes that Dr. Henry prescribed another Crohn’s biologic, Amjevita, on July 6,
2023. 	(Id. at 4, ¶ 22). 	Plaintiff does not dispute that the change to the biologic Yusimry was
recommended by an outside consult with Nurse Practitioner Davis on August 10, 2023, along with
a follow-up consult in six months. Instead, he states he never saw Nurse Practitioner Davis. (Id.
at 4 ¶ 23). Plaintiff concedes that he was seen by Dr. Henry on August 16, 2023, for a chronic
care appointment, and Dr. Henry implemented Nurse Practitioner Davis’ recommendation for
Yusimry. (Id. at 6 ¶ 24). Plaintiff does not dispute that he saw Dr. Henry on September 5, 2023,
regarding restarting his Humira. 	He also does not dispute that he received a Yusimry injection
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
that day. (Id. at 4 ¶ 25). He does dispute that Dr. Henry did not observe any exacerbation as to
his Crohn’s disease during the September visit, stating he was experiencing “severe Crohn’s
symptoms,” and he refers to his Exhibits L, M, and N. (Id.). Exhibits L and M appears to be a list
of either grievances or health care requests. On July 3, 2023, he notes that it had been 36 hours
since he was due for his next subcutaneous injection of Humira, and he was already having blood
in his stools and other severe Crohn’s symptoms. 	(ECF No. 53 at 18). 	On July 6, August 22,
August 28, and August 29, he submitted complaints of blood in stool, nausea, and other symptoms.
(Id. at 17-18). Exhibit N is Grievance OR-23-00608, in which he asserts that he was denied his
Humira starting on May 23, 2023, until September 5, 2023. The grievance was found to be with
merit but resolved. 	(Id. at 19). 	The Court notes that the allegations in the grievance and the
Amended Complaint are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s health care request on July 3, 2023, noting
that it had been only 36 hours since his last Humira injection. (ECF No. 53 at 18). They are also
inconsistent with later medical notes in August and September 2023, as discussed below.
The Affidavit of Dr. Donna Shipley, M.D., indicates that the biologic drug Amjevita, which
was prescribed on July 6, 2023, was not received and administered. 	(ECF No. 33-1 at 2). 	She
further states that “[a]lthough Mr. Bayler did not receive a biologic in July and August 2023, there
is no clinical indication that he suffered any exacerbation. Biologics are long acting medications
administered every 2 to 8 weeks, and occasional medication lapses are not detrimental.” (Id. at 3,
¶ 9). The medical notes for his outside consult on August 10, 2023, do not indicate that he reported
any recent exacerbation of symptoms. (ECF No. 33-23). No exacerbation of Crohn’s symptoms
was noted for his chronic care visit on August 16, 2023. (ECF No. 33-24). Plaintiff was seen on
September 5, 2023, and reported “severe abdominal pain, bloody diarrheas and multiple stools,”
but the notes indicate that he could not “prove that today in any way.” (ECF No. 33-25). “His
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
VS, weight, lab work does not reflect a patient with moderate or severe Crohn’s/exacerbation.”
(Id.). He received his Yusimry injection at this visit. (Id.).
Regarding Plaintiff’s Claim Two, there is no indication in Defendants’ Statement of Facts
that Plaintiff was seen on July 26, 2023, or that he was denied an outside consult or a colonoscopy
on that date.
As to Plaintiff’s Claim Three and the January 17, 2023, portion of Claim Four, Defendants’
Statement of Facts indicate Plaintiff was seen on January 17, 2023, with complaints of abdominal
pain. They indicate his abdomen was non-tender with moderate bowel hyperactivity. (ECF No.
33 at 5, ¶ 18). Dr. Henry ordered continuation of Humira and supplements. He also increased his
levetiracetam (Keppra) 	prescription and ordered a complete metabolic panel, which was
unremarkable. He also provided a script for lower bunk/lower tier housing and an extra blanket.
No mention is made of naproxen, Tylenol, or mesalamine. (Id.). Plaintiff does not dispute this
paragraph, but states that the levetiracetam (Keppra) was ineffective, so Defendant Henry merely
increased the dosage of an ineffective pain medication. (ECF No. 53 at 4, ¶ 18). In her Affidavit,
Dr. Shipley notes that Keppra “has been shown to be effective in reducing inflammation, lowering
risk of colitis and managing pain.” (ECF No. 33-1 at 3, ¶ 11). Defendants note that Plaintiff had
not been prescribed mesalamine between the dates of January 2022 through March 2024. (ECF
No. 33 at 7, ¶ 32). Plaintiff did not dispute this statement, instead noting that Dr. Shipley is not a
board-certified gastroenterologist. (ECF No. 53 at 5, ¶ 32). Dr. Shipley states that Plaintiff had
not received Naproxen at any time between January 2022 through March 2024. (ECF No. 33-1 at
4).
Regarding the February 2022 portion of Plaintiff’s Claim Four, Defendants’ Statement of
Facts indicate that Plaintiff presented to Health Services with complaints of tooth pain. (ECF No.
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
33 at 2, ¶ 7). Plaintiff also requested a high calorie/high protein diet. (Id.). Dr. Daniel reviewed
his vitals and noted a weight gain; Plaintiff was classified as obese. 	Thus, a high protein/high
calorie diet was not indicated. (Id.). No mention is made of Tylenol. Review of the medical notes
in Exhibit F indicates the same. (ECF No. 33-6). Plaintiff does not dispute the facts concerning
the February 2022 health encounter. (ECF No. 53 at 2, ¶ 7). Instead, he states that “[t]his fact has
zero relevance as to Plaintiff’s Complaint.” (Id.). He refers to “Doc. 12,” his Amended Complaint.
(Id.).
Regarding Plaintiff’s Claim Five, there is no indication in Defendants’ Statement of Facts
that Plaintiff was seen on July 25, 2023, or that he requested a special diet. They do indicate that
a high calorie/high protein diet was ordered on June 15, 2023. (ECF No. 33 at 5, ¶ 21). Defendants
refer to Plaintiff’s Special Diet Request, Exhibit U. (Id.). This form indicates that a high calorie
high protein diet was requested. The form also provides diet choices for gastrointestinal diseases,
such as low or high fiber or frequent feeding, but these were not checked. 	(ECF No. 33-21).
Plaintiff concedes the facts of this paragraph. (ECF No. 53 at 4, ¶ 21). He provides no dispute or
additional concern about this paragraph. (Id.). In the earlier Paragraph 12 of his disputed facts,
Plaintiff argues that he has Crohn’s disease and needs a special gastrointestinal diet. (ECF No. 53
at 2, ¶ 12). He refers to his Exhibits C, D, E, and F. Exhibit C is a Special Diet Request Form
dated December 4, 2023. (ECF No. 53 at 8). The form orders a Gastrectomy/hypoglycemia diet
(6 feedings) for him. 	(Id.). 	Exhibits D, E, and F describe this diet. 	(ECF No. 53 at 9-11).
December 4, 2023, however, is several months after July 25, 2023, which is the date Plaintiff listed
in his Amended Complaint for Claim Five. Additionally, Defendants’ Statement of Facts indicate
that Plaintiff specifically requested a high protein/high calorie diet in February 2022 and April
2022. (ECF No. 33 at ¶¶ 7, 9). He was later assigned a cardiovascular diet and then shifted back
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
to a high protein or high calorie/high protein diet. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 9, 12, 21). 	The first mention of a
bland diet is November 6, 2023. (ECF No. 33 at 6-7, ¶ 27). The next mention of a specialty diet
is December 4, 2023. (ECF No. 33 at 7, ¶ 29). This is the diet request which Plaintiff presented
as his Exhibit C.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), 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).
“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.” 	National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical 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.” National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded on speculation or suspicion is
insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d
621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). 	“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 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
III. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	All Claims Against Wellpath LLC and Official Capacity Claims Against Wellpath
Employees Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel
Pursuant to Article IX of the Plan of Reorganization, Wellpath, LLC was discharged from
liability by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, for all claims that arose prior to November 11, 2024. See In re Wellpath (Bankr. Doc.
Nos. 2596, 2680); see also 11 U.S.C. § Section 524(a)(2) (“[a] discharge in a [Chapter 11
bankruptcy] case. . . operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an
action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a
personal liability of the debtor, whether or not discharge of such debt is waived”). 	Plaintiff’s
claims against Wellpath and its employees stem from the quality of medical treatment he
purportedly received from February 2022 through September 5, 2023. 	Accordingly, the
Bankruptcy Court’s Order confirming the Plan of Reorganization forecloses Plaintiff’s claims
against Wellpath. 	These claims should, therefore, be dismissed on that basis. 	Further, a claim
against a Wellpath employee in his or her official capacity is the functional equivalent to a claim
against Wellpath itself. 	See Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir.
2010). 	Plaintiff’s claims against the individual Wellpath Defendants in their official capacities
should also, therefore, be dismissed for the same reason.
B. 	Individual Capacity Claims Against Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel
The Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment prohibits deliberate
indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs. Luckert v. Dodge County, 684 F.3d 808, 817 (8th
Cir. 2012). To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must prove that Defendants acted
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 	Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976).
The deliberate indifference standard includes “both an objective and a subjective
component: ‘The [Plaintiff] must demonstrate (1) that [he] suffered [from] objectively serious
medical needs and (2) that the prison officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those
needs.’” Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Dulany v. Carnahan, 132
F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997)).
To show that he suffered from an objectively serious medical need Plaintiff must show he
“has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment” or has an injury “that is so obvious
that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” 	Schaub v.
VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
For the subjective prong of deliberate indifference, “the prisoner must show more than
negligence, more even than gross negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions
does not give rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Popoalii v. Correctional Med. Servs.,
512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “Deliberate indifference is akin to criminal
recklessness, which demands more than negligent misconduct.” Id.
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) (internal citation omitted). An
“inmate must clear a substantial evidentiary threshold to show the prison’s medical staff
deliberately disregarded the inmate’s needs by administering inadequate treatment.” Id. (internal
citations omitted). Despite this, issues of fact exist when there is a question of whether medical
staff exercised independent medical judgment, and whether the decisions made by medical staff
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
fell so far below the reasonable standard of care as to constitute deliberate indifference. See Smith
v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990).
Deliberate indifference may also be manifested by “prison guards in intentionally denying
or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.”
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104–05. However, the “Constitution does not require jailers to handle every
medical complaint as quickly as each inmate might wish.” Jenkins v. County of Hennepin, Minn.,
557 F.3d 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2009). Further, “[a] prisoner alleging a delay in treatment must present
verifying medical evidence that the prison officials ‘ignored an acute or escalating situation or that
[these] delays adversely affected his prognosis[,]’” Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 342 (8th Cir.
2011) (citations omitted), unless the need for medical attention is obvious to a layperson, in which
case the plaintiff need not submit verifying medical evidence to show the detrimental effects of
delay. See Schaub, 638 F.3d at 919 (citing Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645, 648 (8th Cir.
1999)); Aswegan v. Henry, 49 F.3d 461, 464 (8th Cir. 1995); cf. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 969
(8th Cir. 1995) (“noting that a delay in treatment, coupled with knowledge that an inmate is
suffering, can support a finding of an Eighth Amendment violation”).
There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s Crohn’s disease meets the objective first prong of the
deliberate indifference test; however, Plaintiff’s allegations concerning the subjective second
prong of the test are plainly contradicted by the summary judgment record.
There is no objective evidence of a lapse in the administration of either Humira or Yusimry
during the relevant period. Dr. Shipley noted, however, that Plaintiff’s Amjevita was ordered on
July 6, 2023, but never received or administered during the months of July and August. She also
noted, though, that there were no clinical signs of Crohn’s symptom exacerbation during that lapse.
This statement is supported by the medical records at the ADC as well as the outside consult notes
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
on August 10, 2023. Plaintiff disputes the lack of exacerbation, pointing to health care requests
and a grievance. 	As noted earlier, however, his exacerbation allegations are internally
contradictory and contradicted by the objective evidence in the medical record. 	Further, he has
provided no verifying medical evidence to show that his overall Crohn’s prognosis was
detrimentally affected by the several week lapse of Amjevita.
There is no objective evidence that he was denied appropriate pain medication, outside
consults, or a colonoscopy. 	There is no objective evidence that he was denied changes in diet.
Instead, the record indicates that Plaintiff was seen regularly for chronic care and sick call. 	He
received regular free-world medical consults. His condition was monitored and his medications
adjusted, at times at the suggestion of the free world consulting medical care provider. His diet
was frequently adjusted, often at Plaintiff’s request. 	Thus, there is no objective evidence of
deliberate indifference. 	Plaintiff’s mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical
judgment or his course of medical treatment fails to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
See, Nelson, 603 F.3d at 449.
There are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding Plaintiff’s individual
capacity claims against the Defendants, Dr. Henry and Dr. Daniel, and they are entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons and upon the authorities discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been
recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
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 7th day of January 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06023-SOH Document 54 Filed 01/07/26 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>