United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
O. Hickey United States District Judge.
the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 18). Plaintiff Larry Donnell Milner has not
responded to the motion, and his time to do so has
passed. The Court finds the matter ripe for
October 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). He proceeds pro
se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff alleges
that his rights were violated by the denial or delay of
medical care while incarcerated in the Nevada County Jail.
(ECF No. 1 at 3-4). Specifically, he alleges he was arrested
at his home for a probation violation on October 6, 2017. On
October 9, 2016, he experienced symptoms which were thought
to be indicative of a stroke on his left side. Plaintiff
alleges an ambulance was called, but when it arrived,
Defendant Jail Administrator Glenn asked if he could be
transported by the jail van instead. A driver, presumably the
ambulance driver, refused to allow him to be transported by
van because the time for transport was a concern for a stroke
victim. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
alleges that he was transported by ambulance to St.
Michael's Hospital in Texarkana. He received MRI and CAT
scans at the hospital. He informed the hospital that he had
health insurance with no copays, because he was disabled. He
alleges the doctors could not “figure out why it had
happened, ” so they did an MRI of his stomach and found
a large spot on his liver. Plaintiff alleges he was scheduled
for a liver biopsy on October 12, 2016, but Defendant Glenn
forced his discharge from the hospital on October 11, 2016,
before the biopsy could be done and “in the middle of
[his] treatment.” (ECF No. 1 at 4). Plaintiff alleges
this showed indifference to his health. (ECF No. 1 at 4).
Plaintiff's Complaint was signed and dated on October 12,
2016. (ECF No. 1 at 5).
proceeds against Defendants in both their official and
personal capacities. (ECF No. 1 at 2). He asks this Court to
release him back to his doctors until “such time that
my doctors inform this Court that all my health problems have
been satisfactorily handled with a prom[pt]ness that it
deserved.” (ECF No. 1 at 5).
submitted medical and jail records with their Summary
Judgment Motion. As noted by Defendants in their Motion,
these records indicate Plaintiff was taken to the emergency
room of Christus St. Michael Health System on October 9,
2016. (ECF No. 19-2 at 1). He received MRI and CAT scans.
There was no evidence of a stroke. However, there was MRI
evidence indicating liver cancer in the form of a 6.6 cm
hepatic mass. A liver biopsy was discussed, but “Mr.
Preston Glenn[, ] who was a supervisor at the prison . . .
made it clear that the prison was not willing to undertake
that workup at this point and thus the patient was discharged
back to prison.” (ECF No. 19-4 at 1-2). Further notes
indicated that the prison called and indicated the
“patient should be sent back to the prison and he will
eventually pursue an outpatient workup for his hepatic
mass.” (ECF No. 19-4 at 2). Jail records indicate
Plaintiff was discharged on an OR bond on October 28, 2016.
(ECF No. 19-1).
affidavit, Defendant Glenn stated he called the hospital and
was told Plaintiff had not suffered a stroke. He was told
about the spot on Plaintiff's liver and that he asked if
the spot “was an emergency at this time and was
informed that it was not.” He stated further that
“St. Michael released Mr. Milner back to the jail on
October 11, 2016, knowing that Mr. Milner could seek further
treatment on an outpatient basis.” (ECF No. 19-6).
judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, 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); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). “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.” Nat'l
Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607
(8th Cir. 1999).
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.” Nat'l
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).
does not allege a denial or delay of medical care for his
stroke symptoms. Rather, he alleges that Defendant Glenn
forced his discharge from the hospital before Plaintiff's
liver mass could be biopsied.
argue that their Motion for Summary Judgment should be
granted because: (1) Plaintiff's Complaint is
“completely devoid” of any alleged policy or
custom of Nevada County which resulted in a violation of his
constitutional rights; (2) there is no evidence that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's
medical needs, and Plaintiff failed to provide any medical
documentation to show his health was damaged as a result of
his return to jail prior to the liver biopsy; (3)
Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Marton is based ...