Rawlings v. Drake et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID ALLEN RAWLINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RONNIE DRAKE, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:25-CV-01294 SPM
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff David Rawlings, a self-represented prisoner, brings this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for alleged civil rights violations. [ECF No. 1]. He seeks appointment of counsel and
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [ECF Nos. 2 and 3]. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, assesses an initial partial filing fee
of $2.64 and will dismiss Plaintiff’s official capacity claims from this action. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Appointment of Counsel will be denied, without prejudice, at this time. The Court will issue
process on Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their individual capacities.
I. 	Filing Fee
Congress mandates that federal courts collect a filing fee from a party instituting any civil
action, suit, or proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. Courts may waive this fee for individuals who
demonstrate an inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). When a court grants such a waiver, the
plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis. To obtain in forma pauperis status, a prisoner litigant
must file an affidavit demonstrating his inability to pay. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to
the standard in forma pauperis affidavit, a prisoner must provide a certified copy of his inmate
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
account statement for the “6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
If the prisoner litigant lacks sufficient funds, the Court assesses an initial partial filing fee
equal to 20 percent of the higher of the average monthly deposits or the average monthly balance
in the prisoner litigant’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). After that, the prisoner litigant must
make monthly payments equal to 20 percent of the previous month’s income until the prisoner
litigant pays the fee in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). “The agency having custody of the prisoner
shall forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the clerk of the court each time the
amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid.” Id.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and submitted a certified inmate
account statement for the period from March 10, 2025, through August 11, 2025. [ECF Nos. 3
and 5]. The account statement reflects an average account balance of $11.75 and an average
deposit of $13.30. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
and assesses an initial partial filing fee of $2.64, representing 20 percent of his average deposit.
II. 	Background
Plaintiff is an inmate at Moberly Correctional Center (MCC) in Moberly, Missouri. [ECF
No. 4]. He filed his initial Complaint August 26, 2025, while he was incarcerated at Farmington
Correctional Center (FCC) in Farmington, Missouri relative to allegedly deficient medical care
he received at that facility. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff sues four Centurion employees in this action in
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 2 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
their individual and official capacities: Dentist Ronnie Drake; X-Ray Technician Bobby
Tiefenauer; Health Service Administrator Lisa Ivy1; and Director of Nursing Hollie Smith.2
Plaintiff’s allegations concern dental issues that arose while he was incarcerated at FCC.
He asserts that he was denied proper dental care on three separate occasions by defendants: May
13, 2024; January 22, 2025; and February 12, 2025. Plaintiff asserts that on May 13, 2024,
dentist Ronnie Drake pulled his top left wisdom tooth and a portion of his top left incisor. He
claims that this left him with a large mass of scar tissue in the upper left portion of his mouth that
was extremely painful. He states that the pain lasted approximately 49 days. [ECF No. 1 at 8-9].
Plaintiff claims that he attempted to speak to defendant Drake and Lisa Ivy about the injury on
January 22, 2025, and defendants told him that they did not need to provide him with medical
care because he had informed them that he was suing them. See id. at 9. Drake then spent an hour
extracting Plaintiff’s bottom right wisdom tooth and top right canine. Id.
Plaintiff complains that when Drake extracted his bottom right wisdom tooth on January
22, 2025, he left a fracture down the middle of the right side of his lower mandible, causing him
extreme pain. Plaintiff claims that he was unable to chew on the right side of his mouth for
approximately 84 days, and two large fragments of bone came out of his mouth: one fragment
approximately 3 mm and another fragment approximately 4 mm. Id. However, when an X-Ray
was taken by defendant Bobby Tiefenauer a few days after the extraction, Tiefenauer reported
1 Plaintiff has provided documents attached to his Complaint showing decisions made at Centurion
relative to his dental care by an individual named Lisa Bird. The Court assumes that Lisa Bird is the same
individual that Plaintiff refers to as Lisa Ivy in his Complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to change Defendant
Ivy’s last name in the Court record, he should file a Motion to Substitute.
2 Plaintiff spells Direct of Nursing Hollie Smith’s name as “Holly Smith” in his Complaint, however,
defendant’s name is spelled as “Hollie Smith” on the Informal Resolution Request Response attached to
Plaintiff’s pleading. The Court will have the Clerk update the docket to reflect the proper spelling of
Defendant’s name.
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 3 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
that there was no evidence of fractures or breaks in the mandible. Id. Plaintiff refutes
Tiefenauer’s position because he states that he has bone fragments in his possession. Id.
On February 12, 2025, Drake extracted Plaintiff’s top right canine. [ECF No. 1 at 10].
Plaintiff states that “during the extraction of my top right canine, the defendant pushed the tooth
inward completely sideways and fractured the bone in the front of my mouth.” Id. He claims that
he suffered pain for approximately 99 days after the procedure, and that it hurt so much that he
was unable to touch his gumline. Plaintiff alleges that despite his claims of fracture, Tiefenauer
refused to do an X-Ray of his mouth.
Plaintiff alleges that despite making several Health Service Requests relating to his
mouth pain, lacerations from the procedures, requests for X-Rays, as well as his complaints
about the fractures, Health Service Administrator Lisa Ivy and Director of Nursing Hollie Smith
investigated his complaints and told him that his dental needs were properly treated.
Plaintiff has attached three Informal Resolution Requests (IRRs) and their responses to
his Complaint, which the Court treats as part of Plaintiff’s pleading.3 [ECF No. 1-1 at 1-6]. On
October 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed an IRR stating:
Last time I had dental problems I kept getting tooth infections and even when it
wasn’t infected he kept rescheduling me for months on end. When he finally
pulled them he messed up and left a bunch of scar tissue at my gumline so in light
of that I refused the next dental procedure for fear of further complications. But
now I have several teeth that need removed and repaired once again it’s the
rescheduling game. I can’t drink cold water and I’m at risk for more tooth
infections. I demand service.
I want my dental procedures done promptly, professionally, and without any
incidents or complications.
[ECF No. 1-1 at 6].
3 See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c).
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 4 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
There is a notation at the bottom of Plaintiff’s IRR indicating that he was triaged for
dental on the date he filed the IRR, and he would be “seen within the 4 month time frame.” The
form is signed by Hollie Smith on November 22, 2024. Additionally, Defendant Smith filed an
IRR Response on that same date stating, “Subsequent to review and investigation, the results are
as follows you have been triaged by dental on 10.22.2024 and will be scheduled within the 4
month time frame for needed treatment.” [ECF No. 1-1 at 5]. However, Plaintiff’s allegations
relating to the scar tissue remaining in his mouth from his prior dental service, as well as his
inability to drink cold water were not addressed.
On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed an IRR stating:
On Jan 22 2025 just before a dental procedure a woman in administration at
medical named Lisa berated me claiming that they diddn’t [sic] have to provide
medical services if I’m threatening to sue. After learning it’s my fourteenth
amendment to receive medical care I decided to file this grievance.
If this wowman [sic] doesn’t even realize I’m constitutionally entitled to medical
care, why is she in an administration position. She should not be there.
[ECF No. 1-1 at 2].
On February 13, 2025, Defendant Hollie Smith responded to Plaintiff’s IRR, stating,
“Subsequent to review and investigation, the results are as follows; this issue was addressed
through administration and was reviewed with alleged staff. Outcomes are considered
confidential and addressed at the administration level, as deemed necessary.” [ECF No. 1-1 at 1].
On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed an IRR stating:
The last time I received an X-Ray for fractures in my mouth caused by the dentist
the radiologist claimed it was negative. Why then, do I have a piece of bone in my
possession, that’s 9 mm long and 5 mm thick? I had another piece that was 4 mm
long and 3 mm thick but lost that one. There is no way he missed that! And that
means that the fracture spanning from top to bottom of my lower mandible is
there was well.
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 5 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
I want an MRI and another opinion from an actual proffessional [sic] and an
estimated cost of what its gonna be to fix what damage Drake caused.
[ECF No. 1-1 at 4].
On May 14, 2025, Centurion Nurse Lisa Bird reviewed Plaintiff’s IRR with him and
wrote on the IRR the following statement, “Rawlings 1132174 expressed he feels right upper &
lower mandibles have fractures. He continues to have pain from extractions done on 2/12/25.
Also extractions on 1/22/25. Has “fragment” from 4/17/25. Requests add’l imaging.” Under the
portion of the IRR designated for “Staff Findings,” Bird wrote on May 30, 2025, “Physical exam
noted multiple missing and broken teeth. No palpable deformity was noted, no signs of acute
infection. Examined fragment of material at his request. He was not satisfied.” See id.
For relief in this action, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.
III. 	Standard
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter, his Complaint is subject
to initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That provision requires the Court to dismiss a
complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. When reviewing a
complaint filed by a self-represented person under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court accepts the well-
pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and liberally construes
the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972). A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is discernible, the
district court should construe the complaint in a way that permits the claim to be considered
within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). Even
so, self-represented plaintiffs must allege facts that, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of
law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 6 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
912, 914–15 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for
the self-represented plaintiff).
IV. 	Discussion
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was designed 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). One such federally protected right is the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, which protects prisoners from deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. Luckert v. Dodge Cnty., 684 F.3d 808, 817 (8th Cir. 2012).
To prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, a prisoner plaintiff must demonstrate that he
suffered from an objectively serious medical need, and that defendants actually knew of and
disregarded that need. Roberts v. Kopel, 917 F.3d 1039, 1042 (8th Cir. 2019); Dulany v.
Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). 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.” Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336,
342 (8th Cir. 2011).
“[D]eliberate indifference requires a highly culpable state of mind approaching actual
intent.” Kulkay v. Roy, 847 F.3d 637, 643 (8th Cir. 2017). An inmate must demonstrate that a
prison health care provider’s actions were “so inappropriate as to evidence intentional
maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care.” Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1066
(8th Cir. 2014). Allegations of mere negligence in giving or failing to supply medical treatment
will not suffice. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Nor will a prisoner’s “mere
disagreement with treatment decisions” support a claim of deliberate indifference. Jones v. Minn.
Dep’t of Corr., 512 F.3d 478, 482 (8th Cir. 2008).
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 7 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
A. Official Capacity Claims Against Defendants
Plaintiff names four employees of Centurion Health as Defendants in this action, and he
asserts claims against them in both their individual and official capacities. Centurion is the
contracted health care provider at the Missouri Department of Corrections. The Court will first
address Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities, which are in effect,
claims against their employer, Centurion Health.
It is well established that a private corporation, like Centurion, will only be held liable
under § 1983 for its own unconstitutional policies, and will not be liable under the doctrine of
respondeat superior for the actions of its employees. Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d
972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993). To state a claim against a corporation, a plaintiff “must show that
there was a policy, custom, or official action that inflicted an actionable injury.” Johnson v.
Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2006); Sanders, 984 F.2d at 975-76 (stating that a
corporation acting under color of state law will only be held liable where “there is a policy,
custom or action by those who represent official policy that inflicts an injury actionable under §
1983”); see also Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir.
2004) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690).
In this case Plaintiff makes no allegations against Centurion. The pleadings do not
contain any assertions that a Centurion Health policy, custom, or other official action was
responsible for a delay or denial of access to adequate medical or dental care. Liberally
construing the allegations of the self-represented complaint, Plaintiff may be asserting that
Centurion is liable under § 1983 for a failure to train. However, to demonstrate deliberate
indifference for purposes of failure to train, a plaintiff must show a “pattern of similar
constitutional violations by untrained employees.” S.M. v Lincoln Cnty., 874 F.3d 581, 585 (8th
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 8 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Cir. 2017). Plaintiff here makes no allegations as to other incidents resulting from a failure of
Centurion to train its employees on how to care for prison inmates with dental issues. There are
no allegations which could be construed to constitute a pattern of violations. For these reasons,
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants in their official capacities fail to state a claim for relief and
will be dismissed.
B. Individual Capacity Claims Against Defendants
As noted above, to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference, a
plaintiff must prove that he suffered from an objectively serious medical need, and that prison
officials actually knew of and deliberately disregarded that need. Roberts, 917 F.3d at 1042. The
Court will assume without deciding that dental care is a serious medical need, and that
Defendants knew that Plaintiff needed dental care as evidenced from the IRRs attached to the
Complaint. The question appears to be what type of care was necessitated, whether Plaintiff
received appropriate care and follow-up care and whether there was an unnecessary delay in
providing care.
Plaintiff alleges that he first started receiving dental care from Ronnie Drake on May 13,
2024, when Drake first pulled Plaintiff’s upper left wisdom tooth and a portion of his top left
incisor. He claims that this left him with a large mass of scar tissue in the upper left portion of
his mouth that was extremely painful, and that the pain lasted approximately 49 days. In the IRR
he filed relative to this procedure on October 22, 2024, Plaintiff discusses how prior to his
procedure, he had several tooth infections, but Drake kept rescheduling him for the procedure.
When Plaintiff was finally able to have the procedure, the scar tissue was left by Drake and was
not fixed, which left him in pain and unable to make the next dental appointment. However,
Plaintiff was then left needing to have several teeth fixed, unable to drink cold water, and being
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 9 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
rescheduled again. According to Defendant Hollie Smith, he was refused dental service, despite
his pain, reaction to cold water and complaints of the large scar tissue mass, until January 22,
2025.
Deliberate indifference may be demonstrated by prison officials who intentionally deny
or delay access to medical care. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05. When a delay in treatment is alleged
to have violated an inmate’s constitutional rights, a court measures the objective severity of the
deprivation “by reference to the effect of the delay in treatment.” Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d
1114, 1119 (8th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Laughlin v. Schriro, 430
F.3d 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2005)). To support a claim based on a delay in treatment, a plaintiff must
present “verifying medical evidence” showing that the delay in treatment had detrimental effects.
Id. at 1119-20.
The Eighth Circuit has found that there are circumstances in which untreated dental
issues can constitute a serious medical need for a claim of deliberately indifferent medical care.
See Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 457 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that an inmate with
extreme tooth pain and presenting with swollen, bleeding gums, has a serious medical condition
sufficient for a deliberate indifference claim). Although Plaintiff does not allege bleeding gums
or an infection in this instance, he does allege pain and scar tissue, cold sensitivity, and the need
to have several teeth fixed. Despite this issue, he was not scheduled to be seen by a dentist until
92 days after he filed his IRR on October 22, 2024. As such, the Court will issue process on
Defendant Hollie Smith, who is the person who investigated Plaintiff’s IRR in this instance and
had the ability to schedule Plaintiff to be seen by the dentist. The Court will address Plaintiff’s
next claim regarding his need for dental care.
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 10 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff got into a verbal altercation with Lisa Ivy and Ronnie
Drake. He alleges that Ivy told him before his dental procedure that day that they did not need to
provide him with medical care because he had informed them that he was suing them. Drake
then spent an hour extracting Plaintiff’s bottom right wisdom tooth and top right canine. After
which Plaintiff claims he suffered a fracture down the middle of the right side of his lower
mandible, causing him extreme pain. Plaintiff claims that he was unable to chew on the right side
of his mouth for approximately 84 days, and two large fragments of bone came out of his mouth.
Plaintiff admits that Bobby Tiefenauer did an X-Ray of the purported injury, but Tiefenauer
reported that no fracture was evident.
Not long after this time, on February 12, 2025, Drake extracted Plaintiff’s top right
canine, and Plaintiff complains that this extraction also went wrong. He states that during the
extraction, Drake pushed the tooth inward and sideways, and this caused a fracture of the bone.
Plaintiff states that this caused so much pain he could not touch his gumline for approximately
99 days, but that Tiefenauer refused to do an X-Ray of his mouth despite his complaints of pain
and insistence that he had fractured his jaw.
On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed an IRR relative to his January and February dental
appointments. In this IRR, Plaintiff spoke about “the damage Drake caused,” his request for
follow-up testing to his two prior dental visits, specifically an MRI, and the continued pain from
the prior extractions. Plaintiff also specifically noted why he believed he was suffering from a
fracture to his mandible. When Lisa Bird interviewed him on May 30, 2025, she noted that
Plaintiff had pain and multiple missing and broken teeth. Despite this fact, Plaintiff’s IRR was
denied at that time.
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 11 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Plaintiff alleges that Tiefenauer denied him an X-Ray when he sought one on or about
February 12, 2025, after he was insisting that there was a bone fracture in his mandible. And at
this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds that these allegations, coupled with Plaintiff’s
assertions of pain, could amount to deliberate indifference of Plaintiff’s serious medical needs.
Accordingly, the Court will issue process on Plaintiff’s assertions of deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs in relation to defendant Tiefenauer.
As to Plaintiff’s assertions that Ronnie Drake failed to properly follow-up on his dental
care (and improper delay) when he was complaining of pain, poor results from the procedures
and further problems with his teeth, the Court finds that Plaintiff has also stated enough at this
initial stage of review to state a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Lisa Ivy also state a claim
for relief at this early stage of review for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
When Ivy evaluated Plaintiff’s IRR on May 1, 2025, she knew he was asking for follow-up
testing based on several factors, and she noted that he had pain and multiple missing and broken
teeth. Nonetheless, Plaintiff was denied follow-up at that time. Thus, the Court will issue process
as to Defendant Ivy as well.
V. 	Motion for Appointment of Counsel
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel simultaneously with the filing of his
Complaint. [ECF No. 2]. The Motion will be denied at this time.
In civil cases, a pro se litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to
appointed counsel. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). See also Stevens v.
Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a] pro se litigant has no statutory or
constitutional right to have counsel appointed in a civil case”). Rather, a district court may
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 12 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
appoint counsel in a civil case if the court is “convinced that an indigent plaintiff has stated a
non-frivolous claim…and where the nature of the litigation is such that plaintiff as well as the
court will benefit from the assistance of counsel.” Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 850 (8th
Cir. 2018). When determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent litigant, a court
considers relevant factors such as the complexity of the case, the ability of the pro se litigant to
investigate the facts, the existence of conflicting testimony, and the ability of the pro se litigant
to present his or her claim. Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006).
After reviewing these factors, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel is not
warranted at this time. Plaintiff has demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his
claims to the Court. Additionally, neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be
complex. The Court will entertain future motions for appointment of counsel as the case
progresses.
VI. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis, assesses an initial partial filing fee of $2.64, and dismisses Plaintiff’s official capacity
claims against Defendants. However, the Court will issue process or cause process to be issued
as to Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against Defendants
in their individual capacities.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall update the docket to change Defendant
Smith’s first name to “Hollie.”
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
[ECF No. 3] is GRANTED.
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 13 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must, within 30 days of the date of this
order, pay an initial partial filing fee of $2.64. He must make the remittance payable to “Clerk,
United States District Court” and include his name, prison registration number, case number, and
a statement that the remittance is for an original proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF
No. 2] is DENIED at this time.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall issue process or cause process to
issue as to Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against
Defendants in their individual capacities. Service shall be effectuated on these Centurion
employees through the waiver agreement the Court maintains with Centurion: Dentist Ronnie
Drake; X-Ray Technician Bobby Tiefenauer; Health Service Administrator Lisa Ivy; and
Director of Nursing Hollie Smith.
A separate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01294-SPM Doc. #: 7 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 14 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>