Justice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

JONATHAN DAKOTA JUSTICE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 2:24-cv-02034-TLB-MEF

JAMES JACKSON;

JIMMY STEPHENS;

NICK McKITTRICK;

JEFF WOODS;

ED JOHNSON

(All of Johnson County Sheriff’s Office) DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, Chief United States District Judge,

referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation.

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 43).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 12, 2024. (ECF No. 1). On April 22, 2024, the

Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint to address deficiencies

in his Complaint. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff submitted his Amended Complaint on May 14, 2024.

(ECF No. 10).

Plaintiff raises two claims in his Amended Complaint. First, he alleges that he was

subjected to excessive force during his arrest on October 15, 2021. (Id. at 4-5). He names

Defendants Jackson and Johnson for this claim. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that both Defendants

ordered him to exit the vehicle he was traveling in. “Due to the plaintiff’s known corruption1 of

0F

1 The Court will interpret this phrase to mean that Plaintiff believed that the sheriff and his deputies

were corrupt.

the current sheriff and his deputies he fled on foot.” (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that he was subdued

with tasers and then shocked 8-10 more times while he was face down in a thorn bush and pleading

for mercy. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Johnson witnessed this and congratulated

Jackson for his actions. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that the taser shocks caused him to urinate and

defecate on himself. He also alleges that he was left with multiple lacerations and bruises all over

his body. (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against Defendants Jackson and Johnson in their official and

individual capacities. (Id.). As the official capacity portion of the claim, Plaintiff alleges “[f]ailure

to condone Deputy Jackson’s actions. Instead, praised him and ignored the brutal assault on me.”

(Id.).

For his second claim, Plaintiff names Defendants McKittrick, Woods, and Stephens. (Id.

at 6). Plaintiff alleges that he was transported to the Johnson County Detention Center on October

15, 2021, without being taken to the Emergency Room for further examination. (Id.). He states

he repeatedly asked to speak to the Jail Administrator (McKittrick)2 about the situation. He then

1F

requested to speak to the Sheriff (Stephens)3 and his Chief Deputy (Wood).4 During the months

2F 3F

he was incarcerated in the Johnson County Detention Center, none of them ever came to speak

with him. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges he was repeatedly harassed and even tased and dragged from his

cell by Defendant McKittrick for not washing the walls of my cell as he demanded.5 Plaintiff

4F

emphasizes that he was not the one who wrote on the walls. (Id.). Plaintiff proceeds against

2 Plaintiff’s deposition, ECF No. 45-7 at 7, 38.

3 Plaintiff’s deposition, ECF No. 45-7 at 7, 30.

4 Plaintiff’s deposition, ECF No. 45-7 at 7, 35. According to Defendant Wood’s deposition, he

was a Captain at the time. (ECF No. 45-3).

5 In his deposition, Plaintiff states that the only harassment came from McKittrick. He states

Stephens and Wood just ignored him. (ECF No. 45-7 at 38-39). He also testified he did not file

any grievances about the harassment or tasing by McKittrick because he did not think it would do

any good with McKittrick being the jail administrator. Plaintiff did not address the issue of

McKittrick harassing or tasing him in his summary judgment response. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegation

that McKittrick harassed and tased him will not be considered further.

Defendants McKittrick, Woods, and Stephens in their official and individual capacities. (Id.). As

his official capacity claim. Plaintiff states that: “Praising and encouraging wrongful acts of

excessive force instead of holding the ones responsible for their actions which their oath of office

demands that they do.” (Id. at 7).

Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive, and other damages. (Id. at 9). He seeks

compensatory damages in the amount of three million dollars. He notes loss of employment

through law enforcement. He further states: “I am entitled to these things after my injurys [sic]

were ignored and discredited after being wrongfully accused of charges and detained in an attempt

to justify the wrongful malicious actions of the Defendants.” (Id.).

Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on October 27, 2025. (ECF No. 43).

Defendants argue that summary judgment in their favor is appropriate because Defendants Johnson

and Jackson did not utilize excessive force against Plaintiff during the arrest. (ECF No. 44 at 4-

5). They argue that Defendants Stephens, McKittrick, and Wood had no personal involvement in

Plaintiff’s vague allegations of deprivation of rights during incarceration, and he had sued them

simply for being in charge. (Id. at 5-6). They argue there was no denial of medical care because

Plaintiff was cleared by EMS at the scene of the arrest, which Plaintiff testified that he did not

remember.6 (Id. at 6-7). They further note that Plaintiff did not request medical care while he was

5F

incarcerated in the Johnson County Detention Center. (Id. at 7). They argue Plaintiff failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies against Defendant McKittrick for purported excessive force

and harassment. (Id. at 7-8). Finally, they argue Plaintiff has not identified or provided any proof

of any unconstitutional county policy or custom, nor any evidence of a pattern of such, to support

any official capacity claim. (Id. at 8-9).

6 The Court notes that the Johnson body camera video shows Plaintiff being treated by EMS at the

scene of the arrest. See infra, video notes.

Plaintiff submitted his Response on January 20, 2026. (ECF No. 52). Plaintiff provided a

three-page statement where he lists points in the Jackson body camera video which he believes are

indicative of excessive force. (Id. at 1-2). He addresses the denial of medical care claim by stating

that: (1) he does not recall meaningful medical evaluation; (2) he was in pain and disoriented and

physically incapacitated after multiple taser cycles; and (3) Plaintiff disputes that he knowingly

declined or failed to request medical care. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff also provided a Separate Statement

of Disputed Facts. These facts do not, however, correspond with the numbered paragraphs of

Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts. (Id. at 4-6). Plaintiff does not refer to any exhibits

other than the Jackson body camera video, and he did not attach any exhibits to his Response

documents. Plaintiff was advised that the Court will not look through the entire case file to locate

a document supporting his factual statements. (ECF No. 46). Further, Plaintiff’s documents are

not notarized or signed under the penalty of perjury.

BODY CAMERA VIDEOS

Johnson Body Camera Video

The video begins with Defendant Johnson stopping a vehicle on a deserted road at

approximately 1:00 a.m.7 There do not appear to be any buildings or lights nearby throughout the

6F

videos. There are dense woods and brush on either side of the road. The driver of the vehicle is a

female, and she has a male passenger. The male passenger is the Plaintiff in this case. Johnson

informs the driver that her license plates came back as unconfirmed for insurance. The times cited

are the actual times on the video, not timestamps.

• 1:47 Plaintiff falsely identifies himself as Chris Phillips.

7 The time is provided in later affidavits.

• 6:18 Johnson returns from his patrol car and informs Plaintiff that he is not

getting a return for him with the information he was given.

• 7:12 Informs him that if he can’t get him identified, they will be taking him to

jail to figure it out. Tells him that he shouldn’t be worried about a warrant, etc.,

can get it taken care of at the side of the road. Plaintiff insists he is Chris Phillips.

A lengthy discussion and calls to dispatch ensue.

• 26:00 Defendant Jackson arrives on the scene. Discussion between the two

indicates their belief that Plaintiff is hiding something, but they just don’t know

what it is.

• 27:52 Plaintiff is asked to step out of the car. He does so. He is wearing a mask

and states he has COVID. He is told to face the vehicle and put hands on it. Plaintiff

keeps trying to slide his hands down.

• 29:51 We’re going to take you to the jail and fingerprint you. So we can ID you.

• 30:12 Plaintiff starts to put his hands behind his back for handcuffing and then

takes off running. Jackson yells at Johnson to tase him. You can see a taser in the

body camera screen but it is not clear if it was fired.8 Plaintiff runs into heavy

7F

brush and woods at the side of the road. Jackson follows.

• 31:20 Johnson goes back to the stopped vehicle to secure the female driver. She

identifies Plaintiff as JJ, Jonathan Justice.

• 32:44 Johnson gets in a patrol car and drives.

• 33:00 Stops the car and gets out. Jackson is standing off the side of the road and

loudly commanding Plaintiff to put his hands behind his back.

8 In his affidavit, Defendant Johnson confirmed that he fired the taser at Plaintiff but missed him.

(ECF No. 45-2 at 2).

• 33:14 Plaintiff is yelling and moaning and laying face down on the ground. His

arms are beside him, but not behind his back. Johnson reaches down to grasp his

hands and handcuff him. He had to use another set of handcuffs. Plaintiff still

insisted he was Chris Phillips, at which time they informed him that the female

driver had “ratted him out.” Plaintiff asked that they not arrest the female driver.

• 52:50 Found a 38 special and drugs in Plaintiff’s backpack in the car.

• 56:25 Johnson and Jackson discuss that they must be improving. They note that

the last time they arrested Plaintiff it took 5 guys to catch him in his own front yard.

This time it was just 2 of them in the middle of nowhere.

• 1:14:34 Johnson tells Plaintiff to get to his feet and walk with him.

• 1:15:29 Johnson has Plaintiff sit in the car while they wait for EMS to arrive. Later

discussion indicates that the dispatcher gave the incorrect address to EMS and the

wrecker service.

• 1:19:45 EMS arrives and proceeds to work on Plaintiff. Plaintiff has blood on the

right side of his face and apparent abrasions on his right arm. EMS asks for a multi-

tool or pliers to remove the taser prongs. Got them out using a wire stripper.

• 1:24:14 – EMS continues to work on Plaintiff off-camera.

• 2:11:00 Johnson leaves the scene with the female driver in the back of his patrol

car.

Jackson Body Camera Video

• Beginning of video: Jackson arrives and talks to Johnson. Sound is off until they

approach the stopped vehicle to ask Plaintiff to step out of the vehicle. Plaintiff is

wearing a mask. Plaintiff says he has COVID. Walks to the back of the stopped

vehicle and faces it. Jackson tells him to get his hands out of his pockets.

• 1:47 Plaintiff continues to maintain that he is Chris Phillips. Jackson tells him he

doesn’t think he is Chris. Both officers are standing behind him.

• 3:06 We’re going to take you to the jail and fingerprint you so we can identify

you.

• 3:26 Plaintiff takes off running. Johnson is closer to him.

• 3:28 Jackson yells at Johnson to tase him.

• 3:37 A taser can be heard, but Plaintiff does not stop. He veers into the woods on

the side of the road. Jackson follows.

• 3:48 Jackson fires the taser. Plaintiff bends down but then gets up and keeps

running. Not clear if he was hit with the taser or if he tripped. He does not yell or

scream. Jackson continues to chase him through the woods and onto the road.

• 4:17 Jackson yells “he is on the highway!” Orders Plaintiff to “get on the ground,

NOW!”

• 4:32 Clear hit with the taser. Plaintiff falls and yells. Gets back up. Looks to be

reaching for the prong on his left hip, buttock, or lower back. Taser starts to click

again. Plaintiff is back down. Rolls to back and is facing Jackson. Starts to get

back up facing Jackson.

• 4:40 Screen is obscured by the taser as Jackson appears to load a fresh taser

cartridge. (Later in the video, Jackson states that the first taser shot “didn’t stick

all the way.”).

• 4:44 Plaintiff is several feet away from Jackson and kneeling or partially standing

with one arm on the ground. He is trying to keep moving forward. He falls to his

knees and keeps moving forward away from Jackson, heading back into the woods.

• 4:47 Plaintiff is hit with another taser. It continues clicking as Plaintiff falls, yells,

and rolls onto his back.

• 4:52 Plaintiff yells “Stop Please!” Jackson orders him to “get on your face, NOW!”

No response. Taser clicks again. Plaintiff yells “Stop Please Stop!” Rolls over to

his stomach, but his arms are still beneath him. Jackson orders him “arms to your

side, NOW.” Repeats the Order. Plaintiff says he can’t move. Jackson repeats to

order “Arms out to your side.”

• 5:16 Jackson radios dispatch that the taser has been deployed.

• 5:21 Jackson repeats the Order – “arms out to your side, NOW.”

• 5:25 Jackson repeats “NOW.” Plaintiff states he is trying.

• 5:29 Plaintiff seems to be able to rise somewhat on his elbows and then is back

down again.9

8F

• 5:40 Jackson repeats the order – “arms out to your side, NOW.”

• 5:41 Taser clicking again.

• 5:44 Plaintiff yells “Stop, Please, God, Stop.” He rolls over to his side and then

onto his back.

• 5:46 Jackson orders him to “Quit moving.”

• 5:53 Jackson – “Roll over to your belly NOW.”

• 5:57 Plaintiff states he can’t.

• 5:59 Jackson – “Roll to your belly.”

• 6:00 Plaintiff – “I’m trying.”

9 The Court notes that it is sometimes difficult to see exactly what Plaintiff is doing, because the

light of the flashlight is so bright that it obscures the camera. At some points after the second taser

hit, Plaintiff appears to be propping up on his arms/elbows. At other times he appears to be laying

flat.

• 6:04 Plaintiff rolls to his belly.

• 6:05 Jackson – “arms behind your back.”

• 6:06 Plaintiff raises himself to his knees, with his right hand on the ground and his

left arm up. Jackson orders him “Don’t Get up! Stop!” Taser clicking.

• 6:10 Plaintiff yells and is back down on the ground.

• 6:13 Jackson – “Arms behind your back.”

• 6:14 Plaintiff – “I can’t move.”

• 6:17 Plaintiff asks “Why do you keep shocking me?”

• 6:18 Jackson – “Because you keep trying to get up.” Plaintiff says he isn’t.

Plaintiff is below camera range at this point.

• 6:21 Jackson – “Hands behind your back.”

• 6:28 Johnson arrives on the scene with handcuffs and bends down to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is lying face down with his arms to his sides, but not behind his back.

• 6:38 After an issue with the first set of handcuffs, Plaintiff is handcuffed with a

second set.

• 7:43 Call to dispatch – one in custody, send EMS.

• 9:51 Jackson tells Johnson that he used 2 cartridges, but the first cartridge did not

stick all the way.

• 9:59 Jackson tell Johnson that when I got to here, he tried to swing, so I went ahead

and shot him again.

• 10:16 two abrasions are visible on Plaintiff right arm, one on his elbow.

• 17:08 Johnson tells Jackson to check Plaintiff carefully – he found a firearm.

• 29:33 The last time we tried to catch this guy it look 5 guys to catch him in his own

front yard. Tonight it was two in the middle of nowhere. We’re getting better.

• 33:11 Helped Plaintiff adjust himself to be more comfortable while waiting for

EMS. Did so a couple of times.

• 1:56:47 Jackson and Plaintiff arrive at the jail. Plaintiff was laying on the back

seat holding a can of water or soda. He was able to get up and walk away from the

car without assistance. He had a white bandage wrapped around his right arm and

there was no blood apparent on his face. Jackson asked the officer who met him to

get Plaintiff some water.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

“Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with

the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a

genuine issue of material fact exists.” National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165

F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “They must show there is sufficient

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor.” National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded on speculation or suspicion is

insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d

621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is

blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not

adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott

v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Excessive Force Claim - Defendants Johnson and Jackson

The objective evidence in the summary judgment record contradicts Plaintiff’s claim of

excessive force during his arrest. The Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard

governs a claim that an officer used excessive force “in the course of making an arrest,

investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure.’” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1980); see also

Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009). The test for assessing whether

the violation of the right to be free from excessive force under the Fourth Amendment is “whether

the amount of force used was objectively unreasonable under the particular circumstances.” Vester

v. Hallock, 864 F.3d 884, 887 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). The application of this

standard requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case, including the

severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the

officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact

that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are

tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular

situation.” Id. at 396-397.

“Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s

chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.” Foster v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, 914 F.2d

1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 1990) (quoting Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973)). To

conduct an arrest, some degree of force is necessary. Therefore, the fact that force is used during

an arrest does not alone establish a Fourth-Amendment violation. Crumley v. City of St. Paul, 324

F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized…the

right to make an arrest…necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical

coercion or threat thereof to effect it.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Plaintiff accused both Defendant Johnson and Defendant Jackson of excessive force.

Based on both the Johnson body camera video and Johnson’s affidavit (ECF No. 45-2), Defendant

Johnson fired a taser at him and missed. His next contact with Plaintiff was when Plaintiff was

down and he handcuffed him. In his deposition, Plaintiff agreed that Johnson did not tase him or

take him to the ground. Nothing in these facts supports a claim of excessive force.10

9F

This leaves Defendant Jackson, who chased and tased Plaintiff. There is no dispute that

Plaintiff was tased several times during his flight; six times by the Court’s count after reviewing

the Jackson video. Defendant Jackson’s actions in tasing Plaintiff six times were not objectively

unreasonable because Plaintiff was attempting to evade arrest by flight. He fled into the woods

late at night, on a deserted road, after being clearly evasive as to his identity during a traffic stop.

Plaintiff was in no way physically compliant until Defendant Johnson handcuffed him. After five

taser shocks, he still attempted to get to his feet and run. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff lied to

Jackson when he said he was unable to move, and Jackson correctly recognized that he was not

physically incapacitated. Plaintiff did not comply with multiple orders to put his hands by his side

until after the final taser shock; instead, he kept his hands under him, and at times seemed to be

propping himself up on them. For his final attempt to flee, he used his arms to raise himself to his

knees. At no time during the incident did he comply with orders to put his hands behind his back.

10 Plaintiff testified that Johnson knew what happened. However, the video indicates that

Defendant Johnson was not present for the chase through the woods and the tasing. He only arrived

on the scene after Plaintiff was down and handcuffed him. Thus, no claim for failure to intervene

can be inferred.

The circumstances of the arrest, combined with Plaintiff’s behavior, raised concern for the

safety of the officers. There is no dispute that the arrest occurred late at night on a deserted road

flanked by heavy brush and woods. The location was described by Defendant Johnson and Jackson

as being “in the middle of nowhere,” and both EMS and the wrecker for the car were late in arriving

due to confusion as to the address. There is no dispute that Plaintiff was repeatedly and obviously

evasive as to his identity, and he fled when Defendant Johnson and Jackson were attempting to

handcuff him by the vehicle. There is no dispute that Plaintiff ran into dense woods, out again on

to the road, and then back into the woods.

There is no question of material fact as to whether Plaintiff was subjected to excessive

force during his arrest, and Defendants Johnson and Jackson are entitled to summary judgment as

a matter of law on this claim.

B. Denial of Medical Care - Defendants McKittrick, Stephens and Wood

Plaintiff cannot seem to make up his mind as to whether he is claiming denial of medical

care at the scene of the arrest or once he was booked into the Johnson County Detention Center.

In his Complaint, he states that he was not taken to the Emergency Room and names Defendants

McKittrick, Wood, and Stephens. This would seem to imply that he is complaining that he was

not taken to Emergency Room once he was booked into jail. In his Summary Judgment Response,

however, Plaintiff states that he does not recall meaningful medical evaluation; and he was in pain

and disoriented and physically incapacitated after multiple taser cycles. This would seem to imply

that he is complaining that he did not receive medical care at the scene of the arrest. In his

deposition, he testified that he did not remember EMS/EMT being at the scene of the arrest. This

could imply he thought he did not receive any medical care at the scene. In either case, Plaintiff’s

denial of medical care is contradicted by the summary judgment evidence.

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).

For the subjective prong of deliberate indifference, “the prisoner must show more than

negligence, more even than gross negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions

does not give rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Popoalii v. Correctional Med. Servs,

512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “Deliberate indifference is akin to criminal

recklessness, which demands more than negligent misconduct.” Id.

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.” Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). An

“inmate must clear a substantial evidentiary threshold to show the prison’s medical staff

deliberately disregarded the inmate’s needs by administering inadequate treatment.” Id. (internal

citations omitted). Despite this, issues of fact exist when there is a question of whether medical

staff exercised independent medical judgment, and whether the decisions made by medical staff

fell so far below the reasonable standard of care as to constitute deliberate indifference. See Smith

v. Jenkins, 919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990).

Deliberate indifference may also be manifested by “prison guards in intentionally denying

or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.”

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104–05. However, the “Constitution does not require jailers to handle every

medical complaint as quickly as each inmate might wish.” Jenkins v. County of Hennepin, Minn.,

557 F.3d 628, 633 (8th Cir. 2009). “A prisoner alleging a delay in treatment must present verifying

medical evidence that the prison officials ‘ignored an acute or escalating situation or that [these]

delays adversely affected his prognosis[,]’” Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 342 (8th Cir. 2011)

(citations omitted), unless the need for medical attention is obvious to a layperson, in which case

the plaintiff need not submit verifying medical evidence to show the detrimental effects of delay.

See Schaub, 638 F.3d at 919 (citing Roberson v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645, 648 (8th Cir. 1999));

Aswegan v. Henry, 49 F.3d 461, 464 (8th Cir. 1995); cf. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir.

1995) (“noting that a delay in treatment, coupled with knowledge that an inmate is suffering, can

support a finding of an Eighth Amendment violation”).

Regarding the objective first prong requirement, Plaintiff had taser prongs which needed

to be removed, appeared to have two abrasions on his right arm, and there was some blood on the

right side of his face. It is not clear if the blood on his face was from his arm or some other

source.11 The taser prongs meet the objective prong of the test. For the purposes of this summary

10F

11 In his deposition, Plaintiff stated he has high blood pressure. He did not mention this on the

video, this was not mentioned in his Complaint. Further, grievance records provided by

Defendants note that he asked for refills for blood pressure medication at later dates, but there were

no requests to be taken to the ER immediately after his arrest.

judgment motion, the Court will also find that the arm and possible face abrasions will suffice as

well.

Plaintiff’s allegations, however, do not satisfy the second, subjective prong of the

deliberate indifference test. EMS was called to the scene, and it was confirmed on video that the

taser prongs were removed. Plaintiff was then treated off camera. When he arrived at the jail, the

right side of his face was clean, and his right arm was wrapped in a white bandage. Plaintiff did

not request to be taken to the ER on the video, and there is no evidence in the summary judgment

record that he submitted a formal request to be taken to the ER when he was booked in. In his

deposition, he was asked if he felt like he needed to go to the ER, and he stated he definitely needed

to change his underwear. He did not testify that he asked to go to the ER or that he felt he needed

to go to the ER. (ECF No. 45-7 at 29). He testified that he did not put in a medical request for his

injuries to be cleaned at the jail. (ECF No. 45-7 at 44). Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered

any ill-effects by not being taken to the ER, and he has not produced any verifying medical

evidence of any detriment to his health.

Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied medical care, either at the scene of the arrest or shortly

thereafter in the Johnson County Detention Center, is contradicted by the summary judgment

evidence. Even if there had been some question about care, Defendants correctly argue that

Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he only sued Defendants McKittrick, Stephens and Wood

because they were “in charge.” He does not allege that they were personally involved in any denial

of medical care or other deprivation of rights. (ECF No. 44 at 6; 45-7 at 46-47). See Monell v.

Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 654, 694 (1978) (A claim of deprivation of a constitutional

right cannot be based solely on a respondeat superior theory of liability.).

Thus, there is no question of material fact concerning Plaintiff’s denial of medical care

claim, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No.

10) should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Referral Status: This case should not remain referred because all matters have been

recommended for dismissal in this Report and Recommendation.

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 a 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 27th day of July 2026.

/s/

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE