United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
BARRY A. BRYANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff,
Edward Charles Walker, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before me
is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 19.
parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case,
including conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final
judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF
No. 16. Pursuant to this authority, I find this Motion is
ready for decision and issue this Memorandum Opinion.
filed his Complaint (ECF No. 1) on October 7, 2016, and an
Addendum on October 25, 2016, (ECF No. 8) alleging Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
condition and discriminated against him based on his race
while he was a pre-trial detainee in the Howard County
Detention Center (“HCDC”). Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”) - Randall L. Williams Correctional
Facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Plaintiff is suing
Defendants John Eric Glidewell and Jana Tallant in their
individual and official capacities. Plaintiff is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages and requests “O.R.
bonds cease until a judge is introduced to the facts in each
individual case”. ECF No. 1.
Glidewell and Tallant filed a summary judgment motion on May
22, 2017, stating they are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law because: 1) there is no basis for official capacity
liability; 2) Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiff's serious medical needs; and 3) Plaintiff has
failed to identify a similarly situated inmate of another
race who was treated differently than himself. ECF No. 19. On
June 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Response to the motion. ECF
alleges on or about July 18, 2016 he was arrested on
misdemeanor charges and placed on the floor “in
misdemeanor Pod C of the Howard County Jail. At that time I
had numerous medical problems (head, dental, foot, pain) and
asked Officer Lacie Grace if she could “O.R.
Bond” me out since there was no space available and I
had some medical appointments concerning health
issues…I was told…that Miss Jana said
no…”. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff also claims “on
several occasions over the last sixteen years, I have been
arrested in Nashville. One time I had tuberculosis, one time
I had staff. Every time I was required to post bond. I have
information indicating that some white defendants with the
same and/or similar charges are being O.R. bonded by John
Eric Glidewell with or without a Judges inquiry but by
Officer Glidewell's initiation.” Plaintiff alleges
“a simple examination of book-in records can prove or
disprove this allegation…” ECF No. 1.
to the Affidavit of Defendant Glidewell, Plaintiff was not in
the HCDC at any time during July of 2016. However, on June
19, 2016 Plaintiff was booked into the HCDC on charges of
criminal trespass, failure to appear, shoplifting, and theft
of property and was released on June 23, 2016. ECF No. 20-15.
Plaintiff was arrested again on August 5, 2016 for public
intoxication and third degree battery and was released on
August 7, 2016. It appears Plaintiff was again arrested and
booked into the HCDC on August 18, 2016 where he remained
until March 8, 2017.
August 30, 3016, Plaintiff was examined and treated by Dr.
Brian Oge for a broken tooth, headache and earache he
suffered in a free world beating on July 4, 2016. He was also
treated at that time for pain caused by calluses on the
bottom of his feet. ECF No. 20-1, p. 1. On September 19, 2016
Plaintiff filed two inmate grievances with the HCDC. In the
first grievance Plaintiff states “I would like to know
why I have not heard from someone concerning me going to the
doctor about my foot pain? I also need a 1983 form to file
because there is some racial issue I need explained to me.
For I see that there have been a lot of white people getting
O.R.ed for various reason and not blacks…” ECF
No. 1, p. 9. The second grievance states in part “For
far to long we as a race of African Americans have been
unfairly treated by the powers to be in this county because
the police and the people who are doing certain things and
getting away with seem to think it is okay.” ECF No. 1,
p.8. The following day Defendant Glidewell met with Plaintiff
to discuss the racial discrimination allegations and his foot
pain set forth in Plaintiff's grievances. During this
meeting Plaintiff stated “whites get OR'd for
public intox, but he has never been OR'd for public
intox. ECF No. 20-15, p. 10. Plaintiff also told Defendant
Glidewell during this meeting he had been to see the doctor
in the HCDC in the past few weeks about his foot, but was
only given medicine and really needed surgery. ECF No. 20-15,
October 7, 2016, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Oge for
hypertension, back and headaches, and the foot pain from the
calluses. According to Dr. Oge's Clinic Report, Plaintiff
“complains of pain in right foot for over 1 year due to
multiple callus's. States naproxen and ibuprofen not
helping at all. Patient seen by Dr. Saldino in Texarkana in
January. Patient states was told that would need surgery on
foot.” The October 7, 2016 Clinic Report plan states
“Patient with several callus's on the right foot.
Patient instructed to decrease ambulation. Patient to
continue taking the naproxen and tylenol as prescribed for
symptomatic relief of pain. According to the recommendations
by Dr. Saldino the patient is to wear shoes with orthoses if
possible while incarcerated. Patient to continue to try and
distribute weight away from the painful sites. Painful heel
lesions will go away with abnormal gait, shift weight to the
arch and other metatarsals. Once again, the treatment is
symptomatic, and the patient will need to follow up with
podiatry if the callus's have not improved
post-incarceration.” ECF No. 20-2, p. 2.
Court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows
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). “[A] genuine issue of material fact
exists if: (1) there is a dispute of fact; (2) the disputed
fact is material to the outcome of the case; and (3) the
dispute is genuine, that is, a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for either party.” RSBI Aerospace, Inc. v.
Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 49 F.3d 399, 401 (8th Cir.
1995). The moving party has the burden of showing the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, but the nonmoving party may not
rest upon mere denials or allegations in the pleadings and
must set forth specific facts to raise a genuine issue for
trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 256 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 324 (1986).
Court must view all evidence and inferences in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. See McCleary v.
ReliaStar Life Ins. Co.,682 F.3d 1116, 1119 (8th Cir.
2012). However, “[w]hen 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 ...