Lewis v. Ramos et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
LETRELL DEVONTE LEWIS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:26-cv-05003-TLB-CDC
SERGEANT RAMOS; E. EVANS;
SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL; KARAS
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH; KELLEY
HINLEY; JOLEY SMOTHERS; DUSTIN
SANDERS; CORPORAL TOM
MULVANEY; and BEVINS 	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 Timothy L. Brooks, Chief United States District Judge,
referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1 	Under
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For
the reasons given below, the undersigned recommends that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Letrell Devonte Lewis was incarcerated at the Washington County Detention
Center (“WCDC”) when he filed this lawsuit on January 7, 2026. 	See ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) asserts three claims. 	The first claim alleges that he was
subjected to racial discrimination by several officers at the WCDC in violation of the United States
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Case 5:26-cv-05003-TLB Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Constitution. 	See id. at 6–8. 	His second claim alleges that he was unconstitutionally denied
medical care at the WCDC. See id. at 8–12. And his third claim alleges that he was subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the WCDC. See id. at 11, 13–14. As relief, Plaintiff
seeks $110,000.00 in compensatory damages, and asks that various employees of WCDC be fired
and contracts with WCDC be terminated. See id. at 14–16.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or
it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to
vindicate a cognizable right. 	Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); In re
Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we
hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” 	Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is
discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe
the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal
Case 5:26-cv-05003-TLB Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
framework.” 	Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). 	However, the complaint must still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Section 1983 was enacted to provide a “broad remedy for violations of federally protected
civil rights.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 685 (1978). To assert a claim under
§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that the action occurred under color of law; and
(2) that the action is a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley, 195 F.3d 1007, 1009 (8th
Cir. 1999).
In support of Plaintiff’s first claim, for racial discrimination, he alleges that a fight broke
out between two white inmates at the WCDC, and that afterwards when investigating the fight an
officer “scanned” Plaintiff’s knuckles for injuries even though Plaintiff is a black man. See ECF
No. 6, pp. 6–7. Plaintiff alleges that when he filed a grievance about this incident, his grievance
was rejected by an officer who explained that “this incident had nothing to do with you in any
way” because Plaintiff was not moved or disciplined as a result of the fight investigation; Plaintiff
argues that this response ignores the fact that “my knuckles were scanned 1 st by other officers and
not 1 white person’s knuckles were scanned.” See id. at 7. This claim is obviously baseless, as
Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered any injury whatsoever. An officer simply looked at his
knuckles while investigating a fight. There is no allegation that any racist or racially insensitive
remark was ever made to Plaintiff—which, it should be noted, would on its own likely still not rise
to the level of a constitutional violation unless it was pervasive or severe enough to amount to
harassment. See Blades v. Schuetzle, 302 F.3d 801, 805 (8th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
first claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Case 5:26-cv-05003-TLB Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiff’s second claim is for denial of medical care. A state actor violates the Constitution
when it is deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. See De Rossitte v. Correct
Care Solutions, LLC, 22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022). A claim for deliberate indifference must
satisfy two elements: (1) that Plaintiff had “an objectively serious medical need” and (2) that
Defendants “knew of and disregarded that need.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff alleges that he repeatedly told
medical employees at WCDC that he was suffering from toenail fungus and asked them to remove
his toenails, but that those medical employees evaluated his toenails and refused to remove them,
informing him that he did not have toenail fungus and that his toenails were healthy. See ECF No.
6, pp. 9–11. 	Eighth Circuit caselaw is clear that when a plaintiff is evaluated by medical
professionals and he simply disagrees with their diagnosis or lack thereof, this does not rise to the
level of unconstitutional deliberate indifference. See De Rossitte, 22 F.4th at 803. Plaintiff also
alleges that he frequently requested that his blood pressure be checked, and that these requests
were not always granted (but that they sometimes were). See ECF No. 6, pp. 9–11. Plaintiff does
not allege that he ever actually had dangerous blood pressure levels or that he ever suffered any
medical symptoms related to blood pressure problems while incarcerated at WCDC. See id. In
other words, Plaintiff has not alleged that his blood pressure constituted an objectively serious
medical need that Defendants knew of and disregarded. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second claim
should also be dismissed.
Finally, Plaintiff’s third claim is for unconstitutional conditions of confinement. In support
of this claim, Plaintiff simply alleges that on December 19, 2025, he found a hair in his food, which
he believes resulted from trustees not wearing hairnets. See id. at 13. Much like his first claim,
this claim is baseless because Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered any injury whatsoever from
this incident. Prisoners have a right to nutritionally adequate food, but Plaintiff has not alleged
that the food he was served was nutritionally inadequate or that it presented any immediate danger
Case 5:26-cv-05003-TLB Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to his health, or that his health suffered as a result of the food. See Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d
446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s third claim should also be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that: (1) the case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) Plaintiff/Petitioner
is warned that, in the future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) and thus, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future
judicial consideration; and (3) the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal
from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
The parties have fourteen 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 18th day of March 2026.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-05003-TLB Document 15 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>