United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division
CECIL W. PROCTOR PLAINTIFF
DOCTOR STEVEN FOLTZ, Miller County Detention Center “MCDC”; And NURSE STEVEN KING, MCDC DEFENDANTS
O. Hickey United States District Judge
the Court is Defendants Steven Foltz and Steven King's
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff has
filed a Response. (ECF No. 33). The Court finds this matter
ripe for consideration.
a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff,
Cecil W. Proctor, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is
currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, North Central Unit. Plaintiff's claims arise
from alleged incidents that occurred between November 14,
2017, and November 18, 2017, while incarcerated in the Miller
County Detention Center (“MCDC”). Viewed in the
light most favorable to Plaintiff, the relevant facts are as
was booked into the custody of the MCDC on November 14, 2017.
(ECF No. 29-3, p. 1). Plaintiff arrived at the MCDC with a
physician's order which continued his current medications
as follows: Aspirin 81 mg PO QD; Amlodipine 10 mg PO QD;
Famotidine 20 mg PO BID; Lisinopril 20 mg PO QD; Sulfatrim DS
po x 9 days. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 10). Amlodipine and Lisinopril
are blood pressure medications. At all times relevant,
Southern Health Partners, Inc. was under contract with the
MCDC to provide healthcare services to inmates housed there.
King was a nurse practitioner employed by Southern Health
Partners, Inc., and Foltz was a family nurse practitioner and
contracted agent of Southern Health Partners, Inc. (ECF No.
28, p. 3).
November 15, 2017, during the daily chronic care clinic,
Plaintiff's blood pressure was 80/64. King notified Foltz
of Plaintiff's low blood pressure and vitals. In
response, Foltz ordered discontinuance of 10 mg of Amlodipine
until further notice and “BP checks A2H today and to
notify him of the results.” (ECF No. 29-3, p. 2).
Plaintiff's blood pressure was checked twice later that
day. Plaintiff's blood pressure was 90/70 at 7:00 p.m.,
and 100/72 at 10:30 p.m. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 17).
November 16, 2017, Plaintiff was administered Lisinopril 20
mg at 8:00 a.m. as prescribed. His blood pressure reading was
108/72 at 8:45 a.m. On November 17, 2017, Plaintiff was
administered his morning dose of Lisinopril 20 mg as
prescribed. (ECF No. 29-1, p. 2). Later that morning,
Plaintiff collapsed and was admitted to Wadley Regional
Medical Center for syncope. Syncope is the sudden loss of
consciousness, or fainting. Plaintiff was discharged from
Wadley Regional Medical Center on November 18, 2017, with the
diagnosis of hypotension, or abnormally low blood pressure.
Id. Over the course of November and December of
2017, the nursing staff performed daily blood pressure checks
on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 29-2, p. 2).
filed his Complaint on March 31, 2018. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff
alleges Defendants denied him adequate medical care when they
“overmedicated” him causing his blood pressure to
drop and loss of consciousness. Specifically, Plaintiff
I was taken to Wadley [regional] medical Center, they ran
test and Dr. Wong (attending physician Doctor) Told me my
Blood pressure Was too Low, Miller County Nurse is at fault
for over medicating me & having a near death experience.
I was admitted to Wadley regional medical center overnight
due to being over medicated between the Hours of
[approximately] 9:00am and 11:00 am the morning of
(ECF No. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff sues Defendants in their
official and individual capacities and seeks compensatory and
October 4, 2018, Defendants filed the instant Motion for
Summary Judgment arguing they are entitled to summary
judgment because: (1) they were not deliberately indifferent
to Plaintiff's serious medical needs; and (2) no policy
of Southern Health Partners, Inc. caused Plaintiff to suffer
any unconstitutional harm. (ECF Nos. 27; 28). Plaintiff filed
a Response to Defendants' motion reiterating his claim
for denial of medical care and claiming Defendants also
retaliated against him and charged him an unlawful co-pay for
medical treatment. (ECF No. 33). The claims of retaliation
and unlawful co-pay are not properly before this
Court. Therefore, only the claim regarding
inadequate medical care will be addressed.
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 ...