United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
following proposed Findings and Recommendation has been sent
to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. You may file
written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If
you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain
the factual and/or legal basis for your objection, and (2) be
received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days
of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the
right to appeal questions of fact.
Rickie Green filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on March 21, 2017, alleging that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Doc. No. 2.
Green sues Danny Burl, Juan Burns, Richard Clark, Lemarcus
Davis, Aundrea Fitzgerald, Eva S. Jensen, Darnzell Miller,
Carl E. Stout, Cedric Moore, and Jeremy Ridgle (the
“ADC Defendants”) as well as Williams Benton,
Erica Johnson, Estella Bland, and Ashley Mabry (the
“Medical Defendants”). Id. The Court
previously dismissed Green's claims against the Medical
Defendants, Danny Burl, Aundrea Fitzgerald, Eva S. Jensen,
and Carl E. Stout for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. See Doc. Nos. 57, 67, 105 & 107. The remaining
defendants are Juan Burns, Richard Clark, Lemarcus Davis,
Darnzell Miller, Cedric Moore, and Jeremy Ridgle. Green's
official capacity claims for money damages against these
defendants were previously dismissed as barred by the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. See Doc. No. 54 & 60.
alleges that he was diagnosed with a knee and leg condition
while incarcerated at the Arkansas Department of
Correction's (ADC) North Central Unit in May 2016. Doc.
No. 2 at 6. Green claims that after his transfer to the
Tucker Maximum Security Unit, the classification committee
removed his medical restrictions related to this condition,
and gave him a job assignment. Id. Green's
claims against the remaining defendants arise from his work
assignment. Those claims are: (1) that defendants Burns and
Miller forced him to work even after he stated he had a
no-duty or “lay-in” prescription on September 15,
2016; (2) that Burns required him to work on
September 26, 2016, despite being on a “lay-in”
list, and that defendants Moore and Ridgle watched him fall
while on work duty that day and did not help him; and (3)
that Clark and Davis took Green's crutches away during
chow hall, forcing him to walk on his injured leg to get his
crutches. Doc. No. 105 at 12.
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in
support, and a statement of facts asserting that they are
entitled to summary judgment with respect to Green's
claims (Doc. Nos. 150-152). Green filed a response (Doc. No.
76). For the reasons described herein, the undersigned
recommends that defendants' motions for summary judgment
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is proper if “the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park
Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party
may not rely on allegations or denials, but must demonstrate
the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue
for trial. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir.
2007). The nonmoving party's allegations must be
supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit
a finding in his favor on more than mere speculation,
conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). An
assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely
disputed must be supported by materials in the record such as
“depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials . .
.”. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show
that a fact is disputed or undisputed by “showing that
the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1)(B). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such
that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for
either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects
the outcome of the case. Othman v. City of Country Club
Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes that are
not genuine or that are about facts that are not material
will not preclude summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West
Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).
facts listed below are taken from those submitted by
defendants as supported by: the declaration of Aundrea
Culclager (Doc. No. 150-1); a portion of Green's
deposition testimony (Doc. No. 150-2); the declaration of
Cynthia Gaines (Doc. No. 150-3); and the declaration of
William Benton (Doc. No. 150-4). At the Court's request,
defendants filed a complete transcript of Green's
deposition testimony (Doc. No. 160).
conclusory two-page response, Green does not dispute the
specific facts asserted by defendants but generally alleges
that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical
condition. Green submitted with his response a copy of the
ADC's employment conduct standards, a copy of the
ADC's employee handbook, and a copy of his health
restrictions. Because Green's response does not
specifically controvert the facts set forth in
defendants' statement of undisputed facts, Doc. No. 152,
those facts are deemed admitted. See Local Rule 56.1(c).
was assigned to field utility in September 2016. Doc. No.
150-1 at 1. His primary job duties were cutting vegetation
around the unit and harvesting crops in the unit's
garden. Id. Inmates working field utility usually
report to work between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. Id.
at 2. According to Culclager's affidavit, each unit
maintains what is known as a “lay-in” list for
work assignments. Id. at 1. This list informs ADC
staff who is exempt from work on a given day. Id. An
inmate may be placed on the lay-in list for a variety of
reasons such as medical exemptions, classification, or
school. Id. at 2. Placing a sick call does not
automatically place an inmate on the lay-in list.
Id. Sick call lists are different than lay-in lists.
Id.; Doc. No. 150-3 at 2; Doc. No. 150-4 at 2.