The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
ANTHONY C. GORDON PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:23-CV-06054-SOH-CDC
SUPERINTENDENT BYERS, DEPUTY DEFENDANTS
WARDEN GRIFFIN, DIRECTOR DEXTER
PAYNE, AUDDREA CULDAGER,
WELLPATH and DR. DAVIS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District
Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation.
The case is before the Court for preservice screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.1
0F
Under § 1915A, the Court is required to screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress
from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 1, 2023. (ECF No. 1). Due to deficiencies in his
initial and First Amended Complaints, the Court entered two Orders directing him to file an
Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 7, 9). Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on June
13, 2023. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff alleges that in January, February and March of 2023, he was
denied dentures while incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”). (Id. at 5-6).
Specifically, he alleges ADC policy states “roughly” that inmates arriving in the ADC will not
routinely be given dentures. (Id. at 5). He alleges Defendant Davis, a dentist, told him that
1 Enacted as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
dentures were “not medically indicated at this time.” (Id.). He alleges Defendant Payne, working
with Wellpath, has established a policy of disallowing dentures to inmates. (Id. at 6). He further
alleges that Defendants Griffin, Byers, and Culdager have enforced this policy and denied him
dentures. (Id.). Plaintiff does not allege any objective facts which describe why he believes he
needs dentures.
Plaintiff proceeds against all Defendants in their official and individual capacities. (Id. at
6). He seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. (Id. at 8). As his other
relief, he asks for a proper fitting and a functional set of dentures, and that the ADC be forced to
change its policies so that inmates receive medical and dental care including any needed medical
or dental appliances. (Id. at 8).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under § 1915A, the Court is obliged to screen the case prior to service of process being
issued. The Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion of it, if it contains claims that: (1) are
frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
A claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). An action is malicious when the allegations are known to be false, or
it is undertaken for the purpose of harassing or disparaging the named defendants rather than to
vindicate a cognizable right. Spencer v. Rhodes, 656 F. Supp. 458, 464 (E.D.N.C. 1987); In re
Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988). A claim fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“In evaluating whether a pro se plaintiff has asserted sufficient facts to state a claim, we
hold ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded . . . to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Jackson v. Nixon, 747 F.3d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). This means “that if the essence of an allegation is
discernable, even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the district court should construe
the complaint in a way that permits the layperson’s claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework.” Jackson, 747 F.3d at 544 (cleaned up). However, the complaint must still allege
specific facts sufficient to support a claim. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient specific facts in his allegations to support a claim
for medical indifference. The Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment
prohibits deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs. Luckert v. Dodge County,
684 F.3d 808, 817 (8th Cir. 2012). To prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must
prove that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
The deliberate indifference standard includes “both an objective and a subjective
component: ‘The [Plaintiff] must demonstrate (1) that [he] suffered [from] objectively serious
medical needs and (2) that the prison officials actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those
needs.’” Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Dulany v. Carnahan, 132
F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997)).
To show that he suffered from an objectively serious medical need Plaintiff must show he
“has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment” or has an injury “that is so obvious
that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Schaub v.
VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not alleged that he
was diagnosed with a need for dentures. Indeed, he has not alleged that he was diagnosed with
any objective dental conditions. Thus, Plaintiff failed to meet the first, objective prong of the
deliberate indifference test. Further, Plaintiff states only that the ADC dental provider told him
dentures were not medically necessary at this time, and this decision was upheld by the other
Defendants. He clearly disagrees with this dental decision, but such disagreement does not rise to
the level of a constitutional violation. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010)
(internal citation omitted) (It is well settled that “[a] prisoner’s mere difference of opinion over
matters of expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment fail[s] to rise to the level of a
constitutional violation.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, it is recommended that: (1) the case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) Plaintiff/Petitioner
is warned that, in the future, this dismissal may be counted as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g) and thus, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case for future judicial
consideration; and (3) the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this dismissal would not be taken in good faith.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 19th day of July 2023.
/s/ Christy Comstock
HON. CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE