Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yarberry v. Parker

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

February 23, 2018

CLIFFORD S. YARBERRY PLAINTIFF
v.
TONYA PARKER, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedure for Filing Objections

         This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge J. Leon Holmes. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation. Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.

         If no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, parties may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

         II. Discussion

         A. Background

         Clifford S. Yarberry, formerly an inmate at the Saline County Detention Facility (“Detention Facility”), filed this lawsuit complaining of inadequate medical treatment. (Docket entry #2) Mr. Yarberry originally named Tonya Parker, Briann Li Mandri, Linda McCraw, Turn Key, and an unknown nurse at the Detention Facility as Defendants.

         The Court previously dismissed Mr. Yarberry's claims against Turn Key, as well as the unknown Doe defendant. (#13, #21) The remaining Defendants have now moved for summary judgment on Mr. Yarberry's claims against them. (#33, #37) Although Mr. Yarberry has notified the Court of his change of address (#42), he has not responded to the Defendants' motions, and the time for doing so has passed. (#41) The motions are now ripe for decision.

         B. Summary Judgment Standard

         In a summary judgment, the Court rules in favor of a party before trial. A party is entitled to summary judgment if the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the party on the other side of the lawsuit, shows that there is no genuine dispute about any fact important to the outcome of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246 (1986).

         C. Undisputed Factual Background

         On December 18, 2016, Mr. Yarberry was booked into the Detention Center. (#40 at p.1) On December 23, he filed a grievance complaining about his need for medical attention for back pain. He also complained about his inability to utilize the Detention Center's kiosk system. (#38-1 at p.5)

         Defendant Parker responded to Mr. Yarberry's grievance by explaining that he would need to have a deputy escort him to the front of the Detention Center to complete “voice recognition” to be able to use the kiosk system. (Id.) She also told Mr. Yarberry that he should file a sick-call request for any pain that he was experiencing. (Id.)

         On December 26, Mr. Yarberry filed a medical-request form complaining of back pain as a result of three previous surgeries; he also stated that he needed pain medication. (#38-2 at p.6) The following day, Defendant Li Mandri responded to Mr. Yarberry's request informing him that he had been scheduled for the next sick call, but that the appointment was cancelled, “due to staffing issues.” (Id.)

         On December 30, 2016, Mr. Yarberry submitted another medical-request form, again complaining of back pain. (#40 at p.3; #38-2 at p.8) Two days later, Defendant Li Mandri examined Mr. Yarberry and noted that he was “able to bend side to side, ” had a “normal gait, ” and was “able to bend posteriorly.” (#40 at p.4; #38-2 at p.7) Defendant Li Mandri also noted that Mr. Yarberry was complaining of constant dull pain in his back and that he was “tender to touch” in his lower back. (Id.) Defendant Li Mandri approved 400 milligrams of Ibuprofen to be administered ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.