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.

Smith v. Wright

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

November 20, 2019

HENRY SMITH Reg #05159-010 PLAINTIFF
v.
RODNEY WRIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS

          RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         I. Procedures for Filing Objections

         This Recommendation has been sent to Judge Susan Webber Wright. Any party to this suit may file written objections with the Clerk of Court, but to be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection.

         If parties do not file objections, they risk waiving the right to appeal questions of fact. And, if no objections are filed, Judge Wright can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record.

         II. Background

         Plaintiff Henry Smith, a federal inmate, filed this case without the help of a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #1) According to allegations in the complaint, Defendants Wright and Parker, correction officers at the Saline County Detention Center, failed to protect Mr. Smith from attack at the hands of another inmate. As a result of the attack, Mr. Smith alleges, he suffered serious injuries. (#1) He further alleges that, after the attack, both Defendants Wright and Parker refused to provide him adequate medical care. (#1)

         Defendants have now moved for summary judgment on all claims. In support of their motion, they offer Mr. Smith's records from his stay at the Detention Center. (#16) Mr. Smith has not responded to the motion.

         III. Standard

         Defendants are entitled to summary judgment only if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Smith, shows that there is no genuine dispute about any fact that is important to the outcome of the case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322B23 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246 (1986).

         IV. Facts

         According to allegations in the complaint, Mr. Smith was placed in a cell with a “derange[d]” inmate who was significantly younger than he. (#1, p. 6) On June 4, 2018, the cellmate attacked and severely beat him. (#1) Mr. Smith alleges that he suffered a concussion and a back injury in the attack, but that Defendants Wright and Parker refused to see that he received adequate medical care for those injuries. (#1)

         The Defendants attached Detention Center records in support of their motion, including some of Mr. Smith's grievances, responses to grievances, and medical requests. (#18-1, #18-2) According to those records, on June 5, 2018, the day after he was attacked, Mr. Smith wrote to Defendant Parker, explaining he had suffered a bruise on his lip, a swollen jaw, and a knot on his forehead as a result of the inmate attack. (#18-2, p.18)

         On June 6, 2018, Mr. Smith submitted a Medical Request form, noting that “The Nurse examine[d] me and I told her I was attack [sic] by my cell mate and now I need Medical checkup.” Medical staff responded on June 7: “You will be placed on the sick call list . . . .” (#18-2, p.17)

         On June 7, 2018, Mr. Smith wrote to Defendant Parker complaining that he had a severe head injury, concussion, head pain, back pain, stiff neck, and leg numbness. (#18-2, p. 16) Defendant Parker responded on June 8, that he had seen Mr. Smith on a video and that he appeared to be, “moving around just fine, ” but that he would inform “them” and see if there was merit to his complaints. (#18-2, p. 16)

         On June 8, Mr. Smith wrote to Sgt. Thomason, again describing the attack. Defendant Parker responded that Mr. Smith's “request has already been ...


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.