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.

Stanley v. Brady

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Fayetteville Division

August 27, 2018

WENDELL P. STANLEY, JR. PLAINTIFF
v.
CORPORAL TREY BRADY; DEPUTY ADAM BLAKE; DEPUTY ADAM BAKER; DEPUTY DALTON TRIMMELL; and NURSE HEATHER TRIMMER DEFENDANTS

          OPINION

          P. K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Delta Regional Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction.

         The claims asserted in this case arose when Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Benton County Detention Center. Specifically, Plaintiff contends his constitutional rights were violated when: (1) he was denied adequate medical care by Nurse Trimmer; and (2) excessive force was used against him by Corporal Brady and Deputies Blake, Baker and Trimmell.

         On May 24, 2018, the Separate Defendant Nurse Trimmer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41). That same day, an Order (ECF No. 44) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by June 14, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to the Order would subject the case to dismissal.

         On June 7, 2018, Corporal Brady and Deputies Blake, Baker and Trimmell filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 48). On June 13, 2018, an Order (ECF No. 53) was entered directing Plaintiff to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment by July 5, 2018. Plaintiff was advised that failure to respond to the Order would subject the case to dismissal.

         To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to either of the Motions for Summary Judgment. He has not requested an extension of time to file his responses. No. mail has been returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's Orders (ECF Nos. 44 & 53) requiring him to file his summary judgment responses by June 14, 2018, and July 5, 2018, respectively.

         Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Court's Orders (ECF Nos. 44 & 53) would result in: (a) all of the facts set forth by the Defendants in the summary judgment papers being deemed admitted by Plaintiff, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(c); and/or (b) shall subject this case to dismissal, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2). In this case, the Court will deem all facts set forth in the Defendants' statements of fact (ECF Nos. 42 & 50) admitted by the Plaintiff.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In this case, the facts set forth by the Defendants are deemed admitted. The question is whether given the facts as admitted, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated.

         II. Nurse Trimmer's Summary Judgment Motion[1]

         The following facts are deemed admitted: Plaintiff was booked into Benton County Detention Center on June 16, 2017. On or about July 21, 2017, Plaintiff was allegedly involved in an altercation with correction officers. Plaintiff alleges that his ribs were injured. On July 22, 2017, Plaintiff was seen by a member of the nursing staff, and bruises were noted to Plaintiff's ribs. Plaintiff was noted to have no shortness of breath, and his lungs were clear. The jail doctor was contacted. That same day, the jail doctor ordered x-rays of Plaintiff's ribs. The x-rays were performed that day. The x-rays revealed no fracture or costovertebral dislocation. The conclusion was “normal bilateral rib series.” Although Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that he saw a rib fracture on his x-rays, the x-rays were read by an independent radiologist whose report noted no fractures. The x-rays were never seen by the Plaintiff. On July 22, 2017, the jail doctor prescribed Ibuprofen 600 mg to be administered twice a day for seven days.

         On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff advised a member of the nursing staff that he noticed blood in his urine. Blood in the urine is called “hematuria.” A urinalysis performed on July 28, 2017, showed clear yellow urine that tested negative for the presence of blood. On July 31, 2017, the jail doctor prescribed Ibuprofen 800 mg to be administered twice a day for 14 days. Plaintiff received this course of Ibuprofen as prescribed until August 13, 2017. On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff began receiving Ibuprofen 600 mg. The order was for seven days.

         Plaintiff never requested any pain relievers or other treatment for his rib pain after August 17, 2017. The appropriate treatment for bruised ribs is to administer medications to limit the pain and inflammation. Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are indicated to control both pain and inflammation. Ibuprofen is an NSAID. Plaintiff received Ibuprofen for over a month after his altercation. These facts are appropriately supported by Nurse Trimmer's affidavit and the Plaintiff's medical records.

         The Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment prohibits deliberate indifference to prisoners' serious medical needs. Luckert v. Dodge Cnty., 684 F.3d 808, 817 (8th Cir. 2012). To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must prove that Nurse Trimmer acted with ...


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.