United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
O. HICKEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Separate Defendant Nurse Steven King's
(“Nurse King”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF
No. 26). Plaintiff Cortez Lamons Lockett has not responded to
the motion, and his time to do so has passed. The Court finds
the matter ripe for consideration.
a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se and
in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is incarcerated in the
Miller County Detention Center. He has asserted two claims.
(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff's first claim is not asserted
against Nurse King and, thus, is not at issue in this
memorandum opinion. (ECF No. 7, at 4). Plaintiff's second
claim asserts deliberate indifference, alleging that Nurse
King failed to treat his syphilis on December 20, 2017, and
in the weeks thereafter. (ECF No. 7, at 5).
was booked into the Miller County Detention Center on October
17, 2017. (ECF No. 27, at 1). On or about December 20, 2017,
Nurse King was contacted by the Miller County, Arkansas,
Health Department (the “Health Department”). (ECF
No. 28-1, at 1-2). The Health Department advised Nurse King
that Plaintiff had been listed as a sexual contact of a
person with known syphilis. The Health Department told Nurse
King that it wanted to bring Plaintiff in for an interview
and testing. Nurse King then informed Plaintiff that he had
been contacted by the Health Department and informed
Plaintiff of the reason for the contact. (ECF No. 28-1, at
Nurse King attempted to contact the Health Department several
times to find out what day the Health Department wanted to
see Plaintiff. However, Nurse King had a difficult time
reaching anyone. (ECF No. 28-1, at 2). Plaintiff submitted a
medical request on January 4, 2018, asking for treatment for
syphilis. (ECF No. 28-2, at 2). In the medical request,
Plaintiff stated that he had been having bad headaches. Nurse
King responded to the medical request on January 4, 2018,
stating that a diagnosis of syphilis had not yet been
confirmed. Plaintiff was advised to resubmit a request to be
seen for headaches if he wished to be seen for that
complaint. (ECF No. 28-2, at 2).
was scheduled to be seen at the Health Department on January
8, 2018. (ECF No. 28-1, at 2). For security reasons, inmates
are not informed of outside appointment dates and times. (ECF
No. 28-1, at 2). On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff was
transported to the Health Department for syphilis screening
and testing. (ECF No. 28-1, at 2).
January 10, 2018, Plaintiff initiated this suit by filing a
verified Complaint, stating that on December 20, 2017, he was
informed that he had syphilis. (ECF No. 1, at 5). Plaintiff
also states that on December 20, 2017, he was advised that he
would be treated “next week.” Finally,
Plaintiff's verified Complaint states that he had been
showing symptoms including bad headaches and “sores on
my [genitals].” (ECF No. 1, at 5).
January 17, 2018, the Health Department contacted Nurse King
to inform him that Plaintiff tested positive for syphilis.
(ECF No. 28-1, at 2). Plaintiff was then scheduled for a
follow-up appointment on January 18, 2018, to discuss
treatment at the Health Department. Plaintiff was transported
to the Health Department for treatment as scheduled on
January 18, 2018. (ECF No. 28-1, at 2).
October 11, 2018, Nurse King filed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 26). On October 15, 2018, the
Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a response
to the instant motion by November 5, 2018. (ECF No. 29).
Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the order
would result in: (a) all the facts set forth by Separate
Defendant King in the summary judgment papers being deemed
admitted, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(c); and/or (b)
dismissal of this case without prejudice, pursuant to Local
Rule 5.5(c)(2). The Court's order was not returned as
undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response to
the Motion for Summary Judgment, nor has he requested an
extension of time to respond.
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 Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th
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).