United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY United States Magistrate Judge.
Introduction and Background
matter is before the Court upon Defendant Jessica Ison's
Motion for Summary Judgment. Docket No. 26. Along with that
Motion, Defendant has filed a supporting Memorandum of Law
(Docket No. 27), a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
(Docket No. 28), and the Affidavits of Jessica Ison
(“Ison Aff.”) (Docket No. 26-1) and Cynthia Evans
(“Evans Aff.”) (Docket No. 26-2), as well as
Plaintiff's Jail medical records (Docket Nos. 26-3
has not responded to Defendant's Motion or Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts, nor has he filed his own Statement
of Undisputed Material Facts.
originally filed this pro se, in forma pauperis action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the following:
1.) On or About Aug. 5, 2015 I have been received little or
no food on my trays.
2.) On or About Aug. 10, 2015 Female Deputy's look at
3.) On or About Sept. 26, 2015 Deputy Paul Carter could not
give me any answers to my questions about my state time at
4.) Nurse Ison RN has not or have I [sic] received -
medical treatment for hemorrhoids 9-28-2015
5.) Female nurses look at male inmates and male doctor's
and male nurses look at female inmates. 9-28-2015
6.) Search of cells with inmates not there when cell is
Order entered on October 14, 2015, dismissed all of
Plaintiff's claims against Montgomery County except for
his claim related to female guards being able to see male
inmates while they were showering and all of his claims
against the other named Defendants except his deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need claim against Nurse
Jessica Ison for not treating his hemorrhoids on September
28, 2015. See Docket Nos. 3, 4.
Jessica Ison filed the instant Motion and supporting
materials arguing that Plaintiff cannot establish either that
he had a serious medical need or that Defendant acted with
deliberate indifference to any such need. Docket No. 27.
Defendant acknowledges that whether a hemorrhoid is a serious
medical need has not been definitively answered by the
courts, but notes that a “couple of cases” within
the Sixth Circuit “have suggested that a hemorrhoid is
not a sufficiently serious medical need to support a Section
1983 claim.” Id., citing Williams v. McLemore,
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12634, at *17 (E.D. Mich. 1999);
Voorhees v. Huber, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82102, at
*3 (W.D. Ky. 2010); Cole v. Tennessee, 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 99353, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. 2014)..
argues that, as an initial matter, there was no evidence that
Plaintiff's hemorrhoid was a life threatening condition,
posed a serious risk to his health, or worsened on the day in
question. Id. Defendant further argues that
hemorrhoids are a condition that does not necessarily require
attention from a physician to be treated. Id.,
citing Ison Aff., ¶ 8. She notes that
hemorrhoids are commonly treated with over-the-counter
topical creams and suppositories, and adds that in some
instances, hemorrhoids can resolve without any medical
attention. Id. Defendant asserts that the existence
of a hemorrhoid does not necessarily mean that Plaintiff
would be at risk to develop a more serious health condition.
additionally argues that Plaintiff did receive medical
attention on September 28, 2015 for his hemorrhoid.
Id. Defendant notes that, on September 28, 2015,
Plaintiff received medical attention for his hemorrhoid from
Nurse Courtney Steele and Nurse Andrew Lynch, and ultimately
received attention from a physician who prescribed an
over-the-counter topical cream and suppository for
Plaintiff's hemorrhoid. Id., citing
Plaintiff's medical records, Exhibits 2, 3, 4.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that she
was aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to him that
she disregarded. Id. Defendant notes that
Plaintiff's only allegation against her is conclusory in
nature and fails to include any facts pertaining to her
conduct. Id. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's
medical records demonstrate that he received appropriate and
timely medical care for his hemorrhoid on the date in
question. Id. Defendant argues that although
Plaintiff may disagree with the course of treatment provided
for his hemorrhoid, such disagreement does not constitute
deliberate indifference. Id., citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50
L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Additionally, the medical records show
that Defendant did not have any direct involvement in the
evaluation and treatment of Plaintiff's hemorrhoid;
rather, her involvement was limited to observing Nurse
Steele's conduct during Plaintiff's sick call
examination, during which Plaintiff refused the rectal exam
that was necessary to evaluate and treat his hemorrhoid.
Id. Defendant notes that she was not present later
in the day when Plaintiff underwent his rectal examination
with Nurse Andrew Lynch and received treatment orders from
the on-call physician. Id. Defendant contends,
therefore, that Plaintiff simply cannot demonstrate that she
was personally involved in the activities giving rise to his
claims, such that she is entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law. Id.
reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that
Defendant Jessica Ison's “Motion for Summary
Judgment” (Docket No. 26) be GRANTED.
Relevant Allegations of Plaintiff's Verified
pertains to Plaintiff's sole remaining claim against the
instant Defendant, Plaintiff asserts that she did not treat
his hemorrhoids on September 28, 2015. Docket No. 1.