Ronnie Waddell v. T. ZAK, Sergeant

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0049n.06

No. 19-1436

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONNIE WADDELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

T. ZAK, Sergeant, et al.,
Defendants,

DOCTOR LLOYD; ANDREA ROGERS; E.
JONES; J. WHEA; NURSE JOHN BEXTON,
Defendants-Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Ronnie Waddell spent ten days in a Michigan jail, during
which time he began to exhibit symptoms of withdrawal. The jail’s medical staff monitored and
treated Waddell until his release. Waddell later sued them, alleging they had treated him with
deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
We affirm.
On August 6, 2015, sheriff deputies in Genesee County arrested Waddell and took him to
the county jail, where the medical staff asked him whether he had been using any drugs. Waddell
lied and said no. Within two days he began to show signs of withdrawal, which led the staff to
screen him again. This time Waddell admitted that, prior to his arrest, he had been consuming
Xanax, methadone, and a twelve pack of beer daily. Thereafter the nurses checked Waddell’s

No. 19-1436, Waddell v. Zak, et al.
-2-

vitals three times daily and gave him medication to ease his withdrawal symptoms. Waddell was
symptom-free by August 12, so the staff discontinued his medication.
On August 14, however, Waddell became so aggressive and uncooperative that sheriff’s
deputies (who are not parties to this appeal) eventually tased, pepper-sprayed, and restrained him.
Thereafter the medical staff again monitored Waddell and gave him medication. On August 16,
Waddell was released from custody and taken to a medical center, where he was treated for
withdrawal.
Waddell thereafter brought this lawsuit, claiming that the defendants’ treatment of his
symptoms was constitutionally inadequate. The district court granted summary judgment, holding
that Waddell lacked evidence that would allow a jury to find that the defendants had treated him
with deliberate indifference. We review the court’s decision de novo. See Rhinehart v. Scutt, 894
F.3d 721, 735 (6th Cir. 2018).
We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion.
On appeal Waddell’s arguments are conclusory: he does not identify specific evidence giving rise
to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants’ treatment of him was so deficient
as to violate the Constitution, and his expert testimony (at least what he quotes in his brief) does
not even contain an actual opinion. That Waddell’s symptoms were at one point severe, and that
at multiple points the deputies were forced to restrain him, does not mean that the medical staff
violated any duty as to their treatment of him. Waddell does assert that the district court should
have applied a different substantive standard than the one it did apply. But Waddell neither made
that argument below nor developed it on appeal. And in any event the difference between the two
standards is immaterial on the record here.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.