United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner
complaint of Thomas Edward Campbell, who challenges the
conditions of his confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
For the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the
court notes that the plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed
this suit. The plaintiff has brought the instant case under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of
action against "[e]very person" who under color of
state authority causes the "deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws" of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to provide him
with adequate medical care and used excessive force against
him. The defendants have moved ,  for summary
judgment; the plaintiff has responded , , and the
medical defendants have replied. That matter is ripe for
resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the motions
,  for summary judgment will be granted, and judgment
will be entered for the defendants.
judgment is appropriate if the "materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials"
show 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) and (c)(1). "The
moving party must show that if the evidentiary material of
record were reduced to admissible evidence in court, it would
be insufficient to permit the nonmoving party to carry its
burden." Beck v. Texas State Bd. of Dental
Examiners, 204 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 2000)
(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317
(1986), cert, denied, 484 U.S. 1066 (1988)).
proper motion for summary judgment is made, the burden shifts
to the non-movant to set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91
L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Beck, 204 F.3d at 633; Allen
v. Rapides Parish School Bd, 204 F.3d 619, 621
(5th Cir. 2000); Ragas v. Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company, 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir.
1998). Substantive law determines what is material.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. "Only disputes over
facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary
judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary
will not be counted." Id., at 248. If the
non-movant sets forth specific facts in support of
allegations essential to his claim, a genuine issue is
presented. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327. "Where the
record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of
fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 89 L.Ed.2d 538
(1986); Federal Savings and Loan, Inc. v. Krajl, 968
F.2d 500, 503 (5thCir. 1992). The facts are
reviewed drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party. Allen, 204 F.3d at 621; PYCA
Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management
Dist., 177 F.3d 351, 161 (5th Cir. 1999);
Banc One Capital Partners Corp. v. Kneipper, 61F.3d
1187, 1198 (5th Cir. 1995). However, this is so
only when there is "an actual controversy, that is, when
both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory
facts." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d
1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994); see Edwards v.
Your Credit, Inc., 148 F.3d 427, 432 (5th
Cir. 1998). In the absence of proof, the court does not
"assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove
the necessary facts." Little, 37 F.3d at 1075
very purpose of summary judgment is to "pierce the
pleadings and assess the proof in order to see whether there
is a genuine issue for trial." Advisory Committee Note
to the 1963 Amendments to Rule 56. Indeed, "[t]he
amendment is not intended to derogate from the solemnity of
the pleadings[;] [r]ather, it recognizes that despite the
best efforts of counsel to make his pleadings accurate, they
may be overwhelmingly contradicted by the proof available to
his adversary." Id. The non-moving party (the
plaintiff in this case), must come forward with proof to
support each element of his claim. The plaintiff cannot meet
this burden with "some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts, " Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct.
1348, 1356 (1986), "conclusory allegations, "
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871,
871-73, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3180 (1990), "unsubstantiated
assertions, " Hopper v. Frank, 16 F.3d 92
(5th Cir. 1994), or by a mere
"scintilla" of evidence, Davis v. Chevron
U.S.A., Inc., 14 F.3d 1082 (5th Cir. 1994).
would undermine the purposes of summary judgment if a party
could defeat such a motion simply by "replac[ing]
conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with
conclusory allegations of an affidavit." Lujan v.
National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110
S.Ct. 3177, 3188 (1990). In considering a motion for summary
judgment, a court must determine whether the non-moving
party's allegations are plausible. Matsushita,
supra, (emphasis added). "[Determining whether a
complaint states a plausible claim is context-specific,
requiring the reviewing court to draw on its experience and
common sense." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
671, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (discussing plausibility of claim
as a requirement to survive a motion to dismiss under
considering a motion for summary judgment, once the court
"has determined the relevant set of facts and drawn all
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party to the extent
supportable by the record, [the ultimate decision
becomes] purely a question of law." Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007) (emphasis in original).
"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 the
motion for summary judgment." Id. at 380.
Campbell's remaining claims are: (1) that the defendants
failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical
treatment regarding back, leg, and neck pain, hemorrhoids,
and maintaining his weight by providing a high-calorie diet
and snack bag; (2) that defendant Hodges used excessive force
against Campbell by hitting him in the face; and (3) that
defendants Brown and Paige used excessive force on three
occasions when Brown conducted a digital-rectal examination
against Campbell's will, while Paige held him down.
among Campbell's allegations is that, in 2014, Nurse
Brown performed a digital-rectal exam to evaluate his
complaints of hemorrhoids and that the exam caused him pain
and emotional distress. Doc. 1 at 4-5, 51-52; 53-54; 55-56.
He claims that this evaluation amounted to rape and has
caused him mental anguish. Id. He also alleges that
Brown provided him with Milk of Magnesia to treat his
hemorrhoids. Id. at p. 53-54.
medical records (totaling 1, 537 pages) reveal that he
submitted various sick call requests with complaints
regarding his hemorrhoids beginning in 2011 and was treated
by various medical providers, including Nurse Brown, through
2015, when the hemorrhoids were surgically removed. He was
first evaluated by Nurse Brown regarding his hemorrhoids on
January 29, 2013. See Medical Records at 425-426
attached to defendant Brown's Motion  as Exhibit
Nurse Brown prescribed hemorrhoid ointment. Id. She
treated Campbell again for complaints of pain, constipation,
diarrhea, and hemorrhoids on May 12, 2014. Id. at
777. The notes show that Campbell initiated the visit with
complaints of blood in his urine and stool - and that Nurse
Brown evaluated him and provided treatment by updating his
medications. Id. Campbell's medical records also
show that on July 28, 2014, Nurse Brown performed another
rectal exam during which Campbell screamed. Id. at
831-832. Nurse Brown explained to Campbell that he is going
to have some pain associated with chronic neck and back
problems and that she was there to help him. Id. He
responded that he understood and he was tired of the pain.
Id. Nurse Brown then evaluated and treated him.
submitted another Sick Call Request for regarding hemorrhoids
on August 15, 2014, and Nurse Brown treated him on August 19,
2014. Id. at 585-589. She provided Campbell ointment
for his hemorrhoids. Id.
December 22, 2014, Campbell again reported to medical with
complaints of passing blood in his stool. Id. at
1014. The medical records reveal that Nurse Brown was not
able to assess him; indeed a security officer escorted him
from the clinic due to his aggressive behavior. Id.
at 1 OHIO 15. Later that day, Dr. Paul Madubuonwu examined
Campbell, noting that Campbell would not permit Nurse
Brown to perform a rectal exam. Id. at 1015. Campbell
requested hemorrhoid surgery, and he was evaluated as a
candidate for surgery on ...