United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
ORDER
Susan
O. Hickey United States District Judge
Before
the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed July 1,
2019, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States
Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF
No. 31. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) be granted and all claims
dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has responded with
objections. ECF No. 34. The Court finds the matter ripe for
consideration.
Plaintiff
is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction (“ADC”), Ouachita River Unit, and
files this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging several violations of his constitutional rights
based on the medical treatment provided for chronic pain
related to his hip.[2]
Judge
Bryant recommends dismissal of all claims against Defendants
Vowell, Morgan, and Robinson based on Plaintiff's failure
to exhaust any administrative remedies against these
Defendants.[3] “Under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA), a prisoner who wishes to challenge his conditions
of confinement typically must exhaust administrative remedies
‘in accordance with the [prison]'s applicable
procedural rules” . . . before bringing a
lawsuit.” Townsend v. Murphy, 898 F.3d 780,
783 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 88 (2006)). “‘The boundaries of proper
exhaustion' depend on the prison's specific
administrative requirements.” Id. (quoting
Ross v. Blake, __U.S.__, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-59
(2016)).
There
is no dispute that Plaintiff properly exhausted only one
grievance concerning his claims: OR-17-1092. The ADC's
grievance form requires inmates to be specific as to the
substance of the issue being grieved and to include the date,
place, and personnel involved. Despite these instructions,
Plaintiff only named Defendant Hart in OR-17-1092, which
stated that Defendant Hart refused to help him with his pain
medication and refused to send him to an orthopedist for
evaluation. Because Plaintiff failed to include any
information about Defendants Vowell, Morgan, or Robinson in
his grievance, he did not exhaust his remedies against them.
Plaintiff
argues in his objections that he did not understand that he
must list each employee involved in the issue being grieved
because he was confused about the meaning of the term
“personnel” used on the grievance form. While
that may be true, his misunderstanding of the prison's
grievance process does not excuse a failure to exhaust.
See Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir.
2005). For these reasons, the Court agrees with Judge
Bryant's finding that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies against Defendants Vowell, Morgan,
and Robinson and failed to exhaust his claim regarding his
need for an ambulation assistance device.[4]Thus, the Court
will not address Plaintiff's objections related to the
substantive claims against Defendants Vowell, [5] Morgan, and
Robinson or Plaintiff's claim regarding an ambulation
assistance device.
Regarding
Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Hart, Judge Bryant found that Defendant Hart
administered adequate medical treatment and that Plaintiff
simply disagreed with Defendant Hart's treatment
decisions. In his objections, Plaintiff states that he was
denied “meaningful pain management.” ECF No. 34,
p. 16. This is the same argument he made in his response to
Defendants' summary judgment motion. The record before
the Court shows frequent adjustments and additions to
Plaintiff's pain medication after he requested to be seen
by medical staff. It appears that Dr. Hart was attempting to
address Plaintiff's pain using non-narcotic pain drugs as
requested by Plaintiff. Plaintiff disagrees with the medical
prescriptions provided by Defendant Hart for pain management,
but there is no evidence in the record to support a finding
that Defendant Hart deliberately disregarded Plaintiff's
needs by administering inadequate treatment.
Based
on its own de novo review, the Court overrules
Plaintiff's objections and adopts the Report and
Recommendation in toto. ECF No. 31. Accordingly,
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is
GRANTED. All claims against Defendants
Vowell, Morgan, and Robinson are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claim regarding an
ambulation assistance device is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant
Hart are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] Based on documents submitted by
Defendants, Defendant Vowell's correct first name is
Nanette.
[2] According to Plaintiff, he suffered an
injury to his left hip, which required screws and pins for
repair and left him with a “small but notable
limp.” ECF No. 6, p. 2.
[3] Plaintiff states that he “has no
objections to dismissing Defendants Morgan and
Robinson.” ...