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.

Trainor v. Gilkey

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

August 24, 2018

RORY TRAINOR PLAINTIFF
v.
BILL GILKEY, et al DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedures for Filing Objections

         This Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Judge Susan Webber Wright. Mr. Trainor may file written objections to this Recommendation, if he wishes. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. To be considered, all objections must be received in the office of the Court Clerk within 14 days of this Recommendation.

         If no objections are filed, Judge Wright can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, Mr. Trainor risks waiving his right to appeal questions of fact.

         II. Discussion

         A. Background

         Rory Trainor, a former inmate in the Yell County Detention Center (“Detention Center”), filed this civil rights lawsuit without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) Mr. Trainor alleges that Yell County Jail Administrator Mike Leo May and Assistant Jail Administrator Carolyn Barefield were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Mr. Trainor also complains that Dr. Darrell Elkin failed to provide him adequate medical treatment and medication for his hip, back, shoulders, and chronic diseases.

         Defendants May, Barefield, and Elkin have now moved for summary judgment.[1](#23) Mr. Trainor has not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so has passed. (#26) The motion is now ripe for review.

         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 Medical History

         On April 15, 2017, Mr. Trainor submitted a medical request form requesting pain medication for his hip, back, and shoulders. (#24-1 at p.1) Specifically, he requested 1500 milligrams of Keppra per day and 850 milligrams of Neurontin at night. (Id.) Based on the notations made on Mr. Trainor's medical request form, it appears that his prescriptions for both Keppra and Nuerontin were filled on or around that date. (Id.) The medical logs show these prescriptions were provided to Mr. Trainor twice daily beginning April 19, 2017, through the remainder of his incarceration at the Detention Facility. (#24-4)

         On May 9, 2017, Mr. Trainor submitted a medical request form asking for tennis shoes. (#24-1 at p.2) The notations on Mr. Trainor's medical request form indicate that he was approved for tennis shoes on or around that date. (Id.)

         On May 11, 2017, Mr. Trainor submitted a medical request form stating that Defendant Elkin had provided him pain medication, but that he had not received any medication to treat his Hepatitis C or acid reflux. (#24-2) On or around that date, Mr. Trainor was prescribed naproxen, docusate sodium, hydroclorothiazide and nortriptyline. (#24-3 at p.14) Mr. Trainor received those medications twice daily starting on May 17, 2017. (Id.)

         On May 21 and 29, 2017, Mr. Trainor submitted medical request forms complaining that his medications were still not correct. (#24-1 at pp.4-5) Notations on those medical request forms indicate that Defendant Elkin modified ...


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.