The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
KENNETH MURRY PLAINTIFF
ADC #172099
v. No: 4:24-cv-00816-DPM-PSH
SAVANNA HENDERSON, et al. DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
INSTRUCTIONS
The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge
D.P. Marshall Jr. 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.
DISPOSITION
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Kenneth Murry filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on September 24, 2024, while incarcerated in the Arkansas Division of Corrections
(ADC) (Doc. No. 2). Murry sues Turn Key Health Clinics, LLC Nurses Savanna
Henderson, Leanne Dixon, and Leon Fields (the “Turn Key Defendants”) and Faulkner
County Detention Center Lieutenant Robert Doyal and Sergeant Hunter Wade (the
“County Defendants”) in both their official and individual capacities. Doc. No. 2 at 1-
2. He alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs while he was incarcerated as a pre-trial detainee at the Faulkner County Detention
Center. Id. at 4-7.
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment, brief-in-support, and
statement of undisputed facts filed by the County Defendants (Doc. Nos. 63-65) and a
motion for summary judgment, brief-in-support, and statement of undisputed facts filed
by the Turn Key Defendants (Doc. Nos. 66-68). Murry filed a response, brief-in-
support, and statement of undisputed facts with respect to each motion (Doc. Nos. 71-
73, 75-77). The Turn Key Defendants filed a reply (Doc. No. 74) and a sur-reply (Doc.
No. 80),1 and Murry responded (Doc. Nos. 82-83). The defendants’ statements of facts,
and the other pleadings and exhibits in the record, establish that the material facts are
not in dispute, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. Legal Standard
Under 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
1 As noted in the Turn Key Defendants’ sur-reply (Doc. No. 80), Murry made
allegations regarding sexual harassment in his responsive pleadings which were not made
in his complaint. Murry later moved to add additional evidence regarding these
allegations (Doc. No. 84). On motion by the Turn Key Defendants (Doc. No. 89), the
Court excluded any evidence relating to these unrelated allegations. See Doc. Nos. 91.
See also Doc. No. 90 (County Defendants’ Response).
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).
In Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788 (8th Cir. 2009), the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the requirement that facts be viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party when considering a motion for summary
judgment. The Court stated, “[i]f ‘opposing parties tell two different stories,’ the court
must review the record, determine which facts are material and genuinely disputed, and
then view those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party—as long as
those facts are not so ‘blatantly contradicted by the record . . . that no reasonable jury
could believe’ them.” Id. at 790 (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)).
III. Facts2
Plaintiff Kenneth Murry was booked into the Faulkner County Detention Center
(the “Facility”) on January 16, 2023, and released to the Arkansas Division of
Corrections on June 25, 2024. Doc. No. 68-2 at 1.
November 30, 2023 Altercation and
Subsequent Medical Treatment for Jaw/Dental Pain
On November 30, 2023, Murry fought with other inmates (the “November 30
altercation”). Doc. No. 68-7 (video footage); Doc. No. 63-1 at 53 (Nursing Progress
2 These facts were taken from the statements of fact and evidence provided by the
parties. Opinions, legal conclusions, and immaterial facts are omitted. Disputed facts are
noted. All quotations are transcribed verbatim without any corrections for misspellings or
mistakes.
Note 11/30/2023). After the altercation, he was brought to medical and evaluated by
Defendant Savannah Henderson, a licensed practical nurse.3 Id. Henderson’s
assessment documented that Murry’s vital signs were “all wnl [within normal limits].”
Doc. No. 63-1 at 53. Henderson also documented that Murry was “talking normally,
no slurred speech noted. Gait normal, PERRLA [pupils equal, round, reactive to light
and accommodation].” Id. She noted: “Detainee’s nose was bleeding. Large hematoma
on right side of face. Swollen and bruised at this time.” Id. Henderson noted that she
“contacted provider regarding plan of care” and received orders from non-party
provider Anthony Carter, APRN, for “STAT x-rays of right side of face.” Id.; Doc. No.
63-1 at 52 (Phone Orders 11/30/2023). APRN Carter also ordered Tylenol and
Ibuprofen for pain. Id. Murry disputes he received pain medication, and asserts he was
not given an ice-pack either. Doc. No. 71 at 2; Doc. No. 75 at 3.
On December 1, 2023, Murry underwent x-ray imaging of the facial bones (three
views) at Express Mobile Diagnostic Services pursuant to APRN Carter’s November
30, 2023, orders. Doc. No. 63-1 at 120 (x-ray report).4 The x-ray findings documented:
“There is no evidence of displaced fracture or dislocation. The orbits appear intact. The
3 The video submitted shows Murry being escorted to the nurses’ station. Doc.
No. 68-7. Murry points out that it does not show him receiving treatment there or being
taken to an isolation cell afterwards. Doc. No. 75 at 3.
4 Murry complains that the Turn Key Defendants did not submit CT scan images
or the actual x-ray images. Doc. No. 72 at 1. There is no indication he received a CT
scan after the November 30, 2023 incident. Additionally, as the defendants point out, an
x-ray report with a radiologist’s conclusions is sufficient evidence of the radiologist’s
findings.
visualized portions of the paranasal sinuses are grossly clear.” Id. The radiologist’s
impression stated: “Negative facial bones study.” Id. The x-ray was signed by Dr.
Crysela Smith, an American Board-Certified Radiologist of FLEX Teleradiology
Services. Id.
On December 6, 2023, Defendant Leanne Dixon, a licensed practical nurse,
assessed Murry in response to complaints of dental pain. Doc. No. 63-1 at 50-51
(Nursing Protocol Dental/Toothache Pain 12/6/2023). During this assessment, Murry
reported pain of 7/10 associated with tooth 19 and jaw pain. Id. Murry reported to
Dixon that he “was in an altercation last week and was punched multiple times in the
face.” Id. Dixon’s December 6, 2023 assessment revealed no pus surrounding the
affected tooth and vital signs within normal limits. Id. Dixon documented that Murry
was in no distress during the December 6, 2023, assessment. Id. Dixon ordered
Ibuprofen, Acetaminophen, and saltwater rinse to treat Murry’s dental complaint. Id.
She also noted that Murry wanted to be seen by a dentist. Id.
On December 20, 2023, Murry submitted a medical request, stating: “im trying
to get my tooth looked at again for my third visit so i can go to the free world dentist.,
i have already seen ms. leanne twice this woulddbee my third tomorrow.” Doc. No. 68-
2 at 11. On December 20, 2023, Turn Key personnel responded: “Mr. Murry, Scheduled
for sick call.” Id. On December 21, 2023, Dixon assessed Murry for continued dental
and jaw pain. Doc. No. 63-1 at 48-49 (Nursing Protocol Dental/Toothache Pain
12/21/2023). Dixon documented no signs of infection and administered pain
medications. Id.
On January 4, 2024, Murry submitted a medical request, stating:
my jaw is fractured and or dislocated.. i did not recieve any medical
attetion on the day it happened.. i recieved a ex-ray on december 2nd or
3rd maybe even thhe 4th.. i was denied a free world hospital visit, now i a
being told myy jaw is not fractured this is malpractice on the jail nurse
savanna henderson and leanne. i cannot chew properly and my jaw is still
swollen, i will be telling judge to get it on record what is going on at this
facility, i need a free world doctor
Doc. No. 68-2 at 12. Turn Key staff responded, “Mr. Murry, This is being passed along
to jail administration and the RN supervisor.” Id.
Murry submitted three grievances concerning medical treatment for his jaw
during the first week of January.5 On January 4, 2024, Murry grieved, “my jaw is
fractured and yall are refusing to let me get medical attention. I am getting this on record
for when I tell somebody above the jail.” Doc. No. 63-4 at 30. Wade responded, “You
were given medical attention.” Id. On January 5, 2024, Murry submitted a grievance
complaining that he went three days before seeing a nurse, and stating that he should
have been sent to a free world hospital, that his jaw is still dislocated and fractured, and
that his teeth were loose. Doc. No. 63-4 at 31. Defendant Sergeant Wade Hunter
responded, “This is incorrect you were taken right after the fight.” Id. On January 6,
5 Murry maintains he also submitted a paper grievance regarding his injured jaw
while in isolation immediately after the November 30 altercation, which was not
submitted with the defendants’ motions for summary judgment or provided in discovery.
Doc. No. 76 at 5.
2024, Murry grieved, “I was taken just to take a picture. then was told i will not be given
any treatment. no ice pack etc. i could barely walk.” Doc. No. 63-4 at 31. Wade
responded, “Yes our APRN looked at you a determined that you did not need to be sent
out.” Id.
On January 26, 2024, Murry requested to visit a dentist, stating that he could not
chew food properly, and was informed that he was on the dental waiting list. Doc. No.
63-2 at 24. Murry filed another medical request on February 24, 2024, stating that he
did not want to be seen by a male provider for an unrelated muscle complaint,6 and
added:
I was also trying to see what was going on with the dental waiting list? I
was supposed to go to the dentist last month, i put in a sick call in around
December 5th-8th, 2023. I was supposed to be on Januarys waiting list but
I don’t know what happened. My gums have been inflamed and I have 3
teeth that are not loose but seem to be protruding through the gum line. It
makes it very difficult to chew and i cannot close my mouth.
Id. at 33. He was informed that he was still on the dental waiting list. Id.
On April 23, 2024, Murry was evaluated by non-party nurse Thomas McFarlan
for his complaints of dental pain affecting tooth 22. Doc. No. 63-1 at 26-27 (Nursing
Protocol Dental/Toothache Pain 4/23/2024). McFarlan observed clinical signs of
infection, including swelling and purulent drainage (pus) in the affected area. These
findings were consistent with an active dental infection requiring medical intervention.
6 Murry submitted a number of medical requests unrelated to his jaw and dental
complaints. See Doc. No. 63-2 at 24-41. He has clarified that his request to see a female
provider was in connection to an unrelated muscle complaint. See Doc. No. 76 at 11-12.
Id. APRN Carter prescribed antibiotics for the infection. Doc. No. 63-1 at 21 (Phone
Orders).
June 6, 2024 Altercation and
Subsequent Medical Treatment
On June 6, 2024, Murry was involved in another inmate-on-inmate assault at the
Facility. Doc. No. 68-4 (June 7, 2024 Jail Incident Report). Dixon assessed Murry
after the altercation for his complaints of a laceration and jaw pain. Doc. No. 63-1 at
10-11 (Nursing Protocol Open Area of the Skin 6/6/2024). Murry reported pain of 8/10
and that his jaw “feels broken.” Id. His vital signs were P 140/88, Pulse 96,
Respirations 20, Temperature 98.9°F, SpO2 99%, and he had a one-inch laceration with
blood drainage. Id. Dixon contacted APRN Carter for further orders. Id. APRN Carter
initially ordered an x-ray of Murry’s jaw, but then he cancelled that order and directed
that Murry be sent to the emergency room “due to extreme swelling.” Doc. No. 63-1
at 9 & 12 (Phone Orders 6/6/2024).
Murry was transported to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
(“UAMS”) Emergency Department on June 6, 2024. Doc. No. 63-3 at 28-54 (UAMS
Emergency Department Records). Murry underwent a comprehensive diagnostic
evaluation, including CT imaging of the maxillofacial region. Id. He was diagnosed
with abrasion of his left cornea and bilateral closed fractures of his mandible. Id. at 47.
He was given pain medications and referred to ENT (Ear, Nose, and Throat) and
Ophthalmology for follow-up. Id. at 46-47.
After Murry’s return to the Facility from UAMS, Defendant Leon Fields, RN,
documented a prescription order for Naproxen 500 mg received from APRN Carter on
June 7, 2024. Doc. No. 63-1 at 7 (Phone Orders). He also entered an order for a liquid
diet for Murry the same day. Id. at 8 (Medical Diet Order). See also Doc. No. 63-5 at
10-14 (Declaration of Leon Fields, RN).
On June 9, 2024, Murry filed a grievance alleging that Fields threatened him
while he received treatment on June 6, 2024. Doc. No. 63-4 at 45. Murry stated,
. . . i was receiving medical treatment when nurse leon fields became
hostile and told me he would “snatch me off” the nurse table and harm me
physically. it can all be seen on camera. I will have to defend myself if
constant threats and harassment by officers keeps occurring. . . .
Id. Defendant Lieutenant Robert Doyal responded that he would review the matter. Id.
Murry claims there is unproduced video of this incident. Doc. No. 73 at 6.
UAMS ENT providers Dr. Dang-Khoa Nguyen and Dr. Jennings Boyette
evaluated Murry on June 11, 2024. Doc. No. 63-3 at 20-27 (Office Visit in Ear, Nose
and Throat (ENT) Clinic Records). Dr. Nguyen described Murry’s history as follows:
Kenneth Darnell Murry is a 26 y.o. male seen in clinic today for
mandibular fractures. Patient is a current inmate. He does not remember
how he got his injury. The patient was evaluated in the ED on 6/6/24 and
had CT imaging which revealed a right parasymphyseal and left angle of
the mandible fracture. The patient reports continued pain and has only
been able to eat broth and apple sauce. The patient states that he cannot
close his jaw completely. Reports that he had an old left
jaw fracture approximately 1 year ago that caused malalignment and did
not ever heal properly.
Id. at 20. Based on his review of the CT imaging, Dr. Nguyen found:
- Acute right parasympyseal and left angle of the mandible fractures, the
latter of which may require dental extraction
- Chronic left paraysympyseal fracture causing malalignment.
Id. at 21. He also determined that Murry’s old fracture may have caused some prior
malocclusion. Id. Dr. Nguyen recommended surgery and advised Murry that he may
continue to have some malocclusion postoperatively. Id. at 22.
Dr. Boyette performed surgery on Murry’s jaw on June 26, 2024. Doc. No. 63-
3 at 11-19 (06/26/2024 Surgical Records). The surgical procedures included: (1) open
reduction and internal fixation of right mandibular parasymphyseal fracture; and (2)
open reduction and internal fixation of left mandibular angle fracture. Id. at 17. The
operative report documented the following findings: “Both fractures were partially
healed. Both required osteotomies to recreate the fractures to mobilize, the patient had
a prior left mandibular parasymphyseal fracture that was not mobile, but this affected
his overall occlusal status.” Id. The preoperative history in the operative report stated,
in part:
Mr. Murry is incarcerated man I saw him in clinic for recent mandibular
fractures. The patient was uncertain as to the timeframe that he suffered
these mandible fractures. He also reported a previous mandible fracture
that was treated that he did not seek treatment for this was several months
ago. This was on the left side. I reviewed a CT scan that showed the
healing of the old fracture, which continued to be displaced. He also had
new fractures on the right parasymphyseal region and on the left
mandibular angle region.
Id.7
Murry returned to UAMS for post-operative care on July 9, 2024, and August 6,
2024. Doc. No. 63-3 at 1-10 (07/09/2024 & 08/06/2024 ENT Records). He continued
to receive care for his jaw while at the ADC. See Doc. No. 68-8 (ADC Medical
Records).
IV. Analysis
A. Deliberate Indifference Claims
1. Legal Standard – Pretrial Detainee’s Medical Treatment Claims
Murry was a pretrial detainee at the Facility at all times relevant to this case.
Pretrial detainees’ claims are evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d
454, 457 (8th Cir. 2004). Pretrial detainees are entitled to at least as much protection
under the Fourteenth Amendment as under the Eighth Amendment. See id. (citing
Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equip. Co., 183 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir. 1999)); see also
Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152–53 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (applying deliberate
indifference standard to pretrial detainee’s claims of inadequate medical care).8 To
7 Murry disputes that he told Drs. Nguyen or Boyette that he did not remember
how he fractured his jaw or that he did not seek treatment for an earlier fracture. Doc.
No. 83 at 3. Murry’s statements to these physicians is not material to whether any of the
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
8 In Spencer, the Eighth Circuit explained that it had never articulated an exact
standard for evaluating medical treatment claims brought by pretrial detainees. 183 F.3d
at 905. The Court acknowledged that pretrial detainees’ claims may be subject to an
objective reasonable test rather than the subjective deliberate indifference standard. Id.
succeed with an Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim, a plaintiff must
allege and prove that: (1) he had objectively serious medical needs; and (2) prison
officials subjectively knew of, but deliberately disregarded, those serious medical
needs. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997). Additionally, the
Eighth Circuit has held that a “prisoner must show more than negligence, more even
than gross negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to
the level of a constitutional violation.” Estate of Rosenberg by Rosenberg v. Crandell,
56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995).
2. Turn Key Defendants
In his complaint, Murry alleged that Nurse Henderson was present in the nurses’
station when he arrived after the November 30 altercation, but that she did not treat his
injuries and only took pictures. Doc. No. 2 at 4. He claimed he was not sent to a
hospital or given any medical assistance. Id. Murry stated he suffered intense pain,
filed a medical grievance, and was given an x-ray a few days later. Id. He stated that
Dixon told him there were no fractures. Id.
Murry’s medical records contradict his assertion that he received no medical
treatment immediately after the November 30 altercation and did not receive an x-ray
The Eighth Circuit addressed this issue again in Bailey v. Feltmann, 810 F.3d 589, 593
(8th Cir. 2016), where it declined to address the proper constitutional standard
unnecessarily, but noted that when that case was decided it was not clearly established
that a pre-trial detainee was entitled to more protection than that provided by the Eighth
Amendment.
until several days later.9 A medical record dated November 30 documents that
Henderson took Murry’s vitals, examined him, contacted a provider who ordered an x-
ray, and ordered pain medication. Doc. No. 53 at 52-53. An x-ray report dated
December 1, 2023, prepared by a radiologist, found no fractures. Id. at 120. Murry
asserts that this x-ray report is fake, generated by artificial intelligence, or otherwise
unreliable, but he has come forward with no evidence to contradict the records showing
he was evaluated and treated the day of the altercation, and that he was x-rayed the next
day as ordered by the provider. A plaintiff’s unsupported statement is insufficient to
defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Conseco Life Ins. Co.
v. Williams, 620 F.3d 902, 909 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Flentje v. First Nat’l Bank of
Wynne, 340 Ark. 563, 11 S.W.3d 531 (2000) (“When the movant makes a prima facie
showing of entitlement to a summary judgment, the respondent must discard the
shielding cloak of formal allegations and meet proof with proof by showing a genuine
issue as to a material fact.”); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule
9 As stated above, if opposing parties tell two different stories, as is the case here,
the Court is required to view genuinely disputed material facts in a light most favorable
to the nonmoving party, as long as those facts are not so blatantly contradicted by the
record that no reasonable jury could believe them. The Court finds that Murry’s
allegations that he received no medical treatment after the November 30 altercation is so
blatantly contradicted by the record that no reasonable jury could believe them. The
Court is therefore not required to view the facts in a light most favorable to Murry, and
declines to adopt his version of the facts for purposes of ruling on this motion. See Boude
v. City of Raymore, 855 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2017).
56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.”).
The record in this case shows that Henderson provided treatment to Murry after
the November 30 altercation and ordered the treatment recommended by a provider.
The following day he was x-rayed, and a radiologist found no fracture.10 Murry has not
produced any medical records or expert opinion testimony to establish that his injuries
warranted medical treatment different than what he received or that would be obvious
to a layperson. See Williams v. Whitfield, No. 2:09CV00100 JLH/BD, 2010 WL
4792146, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 17, 2010) (quoting Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d
645, 648 (8th Cir.1999) (“‘[W]e have repeatedly emphasized that the need or the
deprivation alleged must be either obvious to the lay person or supported by medical
evidence, like a physician’s diagnosis.’”) (emphasis in original).
Murry also alleged in his complaint that Nurse Dixon denied him attention for
his complaints that he could not chew properly, experienced dental pain, had teeth
“protruding out of [his] gums,” and had misaligned teeth following the November 30
altercation. Doc. No. 2 at 5. He stated that he put in medical grievances from
December of 2023 through May of 2024, but Dixon denied him attention and said
they did not have a dentist. The record in this case belies those allegations. Dixon
10 Even if Murry sustained a jaw fracture on November 30 that was not captured by
the December 1 x-ray, it would not establish that Henderson (or Dixon to the extent she
also reviewed the x-ray) were deliberately indifferent to Murry’s serious medical needs.
They had every reason to rely on the findings in the x-ray report.
assessed Murry’s complaints of dental pain on December 6, 2023, and found no signs
of infection. Doc. No. 63-1 at 50-51. She noted he had been punched in the face in
an altercation the week before and wanted to be seen by a dentist. Id. She also
prescribed Tylenol, Ibuprofen, and a salt water rinse. Id. Dixon assessed Murry
again on December 21, 2023, in response to his complaints about a tooth. Id. at 48-
49. She found no sign of infection and again ordered Tylenol and Ibuprofen. Id. To
the extent a potential jaw fracture existed but was not identified by the radiologist
who reviewed the December 1 x-ray, that would not be obvious to Dixon. Her failure
to recognize that a jaw injury might be causing those complaints would, at worst,
constitute negligence.11 And as noted above, mere negligence does not amount to a
constitutional violation.
There is no indication in the record that Dixon responded to Murry’s grievances
about dental pain or trouble chewing. In response to those grievances, he was informed
that he was on the dental waiting list on January 26, 2024, and on February 24, 2024.
Doc. No. 63-2 at 24 & 33. He was ultimately examined by APRN McFarlan on April
23, 2024, who diagnosed an infection and provided treatment. Doc. No. 63-1 at 26-27.
Finally, Murry’s only complaint allegation against Defendant Leon Fields is that
he threatened him after the June 6 altercation. Doc. No. 2 at 6 (“I was threatened by
the nurse on shift, Nurse Leon Fields while trying to explain how much pain I was in.”).
11 The Court makes no finding regarding whether Dixon’s actions or inactions
amounted to negligence.
The Court initially construed Murry’s complaint as alleging that Fields threatened him
instead of providing medical treatment.12 However, Murry does not make any such
allegation in his responsive pleadings. Rather, he asserts that Fields threatened him on
June 6, 2024, and that he “became hostile and told me he would ‘snatch me off’ the
nurse table and harm me physically.” Doc. No. 76 at 6; see also Doc. No. 63-4 at 45.
Murry’s medical records show that Dixon (not Fields) assessed Murry after that
interaction and ultimately obtained orders from APRN Carter to send Murry to a
hospital for emergency treatment. Fields’ only involvement was to order medication
and a liquid diet for Murry after he returned to the Facility. See Doc. No. 63-1 at 7-8;
Doc. No. 63-5 at 10-13. Accordingly, the record shows that Fields was not deliberately
indifferent to Murry’s serious medical needs.
Because the evidence in this record does not establish that any of the Turn Key
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Murry’s serious medical needs, Murry’s
claims against the Turn Key Defendants in both their individual and official capacities13
should be dismissed with prejudice.
12 To the extent Murry sues Fields solely based on his alleged threats, he fails to
describe a constitutional claim. See Hopson v. Fredericksen, 961 F.2d 1374, 1378 (8th Cir.
1992) (finding officer’s use of racial slur and threat to knock prisoner’s teeth out was not
actionable). The only exception to this rule is when a verbal threat rises to the level of a
“wanton act of cruelty” such that the inmate is in fear of “instant and unexpected death at
the whim of his allegedly bigoted custodians.” Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97, 99–100
(8th Cir. 1986). Murry’s allegation that Fields threatened to harm him physically does not
rise to this level.
13 See Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, 503 F.3d 667, 674 (8th Cir. 2007) (official
capacity claim fails if plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation).
3. Faulkner County Defendants.
a) Individual Capacity Claims
The Faulkner County Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified
immunity with respect to Murry’s claims against them in their individual capacities
because he cannot establish that they violated his constitutional rights.14 Doc. No. 67
at 3-9. Murry alleged that Doyle and Wade were in the nurses’ station after the
November 30 altercation. Doc. No. 2 at 4. He alleged that Henderson took photos
while Wade and other officers stood by laughing, and that he “was not sent to the
freeworld hospital or given any medical assistance,” but “was sent to the hole next door
to the nurse station.” Id. As explained above, Murry’s medical records show that he
did receive medical treatment after the November 30 altercation, and it was APRN
Carter that ordered an x-ray and no other emergency treatment. There is no indication
that Doyle or Wade were involved in Murry’s treatment once he was in the nurses’
station, and Murry has not alleged that Doyle or Wade prevented him from receiving
medical treatment. The County Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment
as to Murry’s deliberate indifference claims in their individual capacities. See Keeper
v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (prison official not involved in treatment
14 To determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court
must consider two questions: (1) do the facts alleged by plaintiff establish a violation of a
constitutional or statutory right; and (2) if so, was that right clearly established at the time
of the defendant’s alleged misconduct. Wright v. United States, 813 F.3d 689, 695 (8th
Cir. 2015). Qualified immunity is a question of law, not fact, for the court to decide.
Kelsay v. Ernest, 933 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 2019).
decisions made by medical unit’s staff cannot be liable for medical staff’s diagnostic
decisions).
b. Official Capacity Claims
The County Defendants are also entitled to judgment in their official capacities.
Official capacity claims are “functionally equivalent to a suit against the employing
governmental entity.” Veach v. Bartels Lutheran Home, 627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir.
2010). Thus, a suit against a defendant in his official capacity is in essence a suit against
the County or city itself. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2010); Liebe v.
Norton, 157 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1998). A municipality cannot be held liable on the basis
of respondeat superior, or simply by virtue of being the employer of a tortfeasor.
Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo., 709 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 2013). Accordingly,
Doyle and Wade, as county employees, can only be held liable in their official capacity
in this case if Murry can establish that a constitutional violation was committed pursuant
to “an official custom, policy, or practice of the governmental entity.” Moyle v.
Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 817 (8th Cir. 2009).
Murry’s official capacity claims against Doyle and Wade fail for two reasons.
First, they did not violate his rights, as explained above. Second, Murry did not allege
in his complaint that any alleged constitutional violation was caused by an
unconstitutional policy or custom of Faulkner County. Doyle and Wade are therefore
entitled to judgment as a matter of law in their official capacities.
B. Claims First Raised in Murry’s Responsive Pleadings
Murry raised several new claims in his responsive pleadings, including First
Amendment retaliation and access-to-courts claims. See Doc. No. 73 at 2-3 (generally
alleging that all defendants retaliated against him for his use of the grievance procedure,
alleging that unnamed jailers physically and verbally retaliated against him, physically
assaulted him, and sexually harassed him); Doc. No. 82 at 5 (unnamed “officers” tried
to break his wrist while he was cuffed while he was taking a new booking photo);15
Doc. No. 73 at 7 (generally alleging that defendants refused him 1983 forms and
tampered with his mail); Doc. No. 75 at 4 (same); Doc. No. 76 at 4-5 (same). Murry
also alleges for the first time that he endured poor sleeping conditions with no pillow
or ability to elevate his head (Doc. No. 75 at 3-4; Doc. No. 76 at 12) and did not receive
pain medication or ice packs after the November 30 altercation (Doc. No. 71 at 2; Doc.
No. 75 at 2-3).
Murry has not sought permission to amend his complaint to add these claims in
an amended complaint; he has not filed a proposed amended complaint raising these
claims; and the defendants have not had the opportunity to defend these claims in an
15 Murry described the rebooking incident in his complaint as the use of “obsessive
force.” Doc. No. 2 at 5-7. He alleged that unnamed officers changed his booking
number and photo in an effort to erase grievances he had filed. Id. Murry made no
allegations of physical force in his complaint, and the Court did not construe the
allegations regarding a new booking number and photo as part of any actionable claim.
answer or other dispositive motion.'© These claims are therefore not properly before
the Court and are not addressed. See e.g., Loggins v. Albert, No. 24-1545, 2024 WL
5074756 (8th Cir. Dec. 11, 2024) (pretrial detainee could not add new theory of
excessive force in his deposition when it was not included in his complaint and he did
not move to amend); N. States Power Co. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 358 F.3d 1050, 1057
(8th Cir. 2004) (where complaint contained no allegations that would notify defendant
of claim, party could not manufacture claim late in litigation to avoid summary
judgment).
V. Conclusion
The undisputed facts establish that the defendants were not deliberately
indifferent to Murry’s serious medical needs. The undersigned therefore recommends
that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 63 & 66) be granted.
Murry’s deliberate indifference claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
DATED this 23rd day of July, 2026. . 7 /
UNITED STATES OG RATE JUDGE
‘6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), once an answer has been
filed, ““a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or
the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”
However, the Court may “properly deny a party’s motion to amend its complaint when
such amendment would unduly prejudice the non-moving party or would be futile.”
Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Kozohorsky v.
Harmon, 332 F.3d 1141, 1144 (8th Cir. 2003)).