Douglas W. Mayberry v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., and WILLIAM REICH

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 2, 2025*
Decided September 4, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2324
DOUGLAS W. MAYBERRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
and WILLIAM REICH,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 23-cv-3041-JES
James E. Shadid,
Judge.
O R D E R
Douglas Mayberry, an Illinois prisoner, appeals the summary judgment rejecting
his claim that his prison’s medical vendor and dentist denied him dental implants and
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2324 Page 2
delayed his new dentures, in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
We recount the facts in the light most favorable to Mayberry, the party opposing
summary judgment. Brown v. LaVoie, 90 F.4th 1206, 1211 (7th Cir. 2024). In 2014
Mayberry, then incarcerated at Western Illinois Correctional Center, received dentures
that caused him to gag. The dentures were uncomfortable and affected the taste and feel
of food, so he went long stretches of time without wearing them.
After his transfer to Taylorville Correctional Center in late 2021, Mayberry
complained about the discomfort to the prison dentist, Dr. William Reich. Mayberry
said that wearing the dentures triggered a gag reflex, and he asked for dental implants.
Dr. Reich responded that the Illinois Department of Corrections does not provide dental
implants. Dr. Reich then adjusted Mayberry’s dentures to make them more comfortable
and ordered a soft diet so Mayberry could eat more comfortably. To prevent any
allergic reaction, Dr. Reich also replaced the adhesive used in Mayberry’s dentures.
But Mayberry’s problems with the dentures persisted, and he again requested
dental implants. In late 2022, at Mayberry’s insistence, Dr. Reich referred him for a
surgical consultation. The referral was denied by Dr. Russell Austin, the chief of oral
health services at Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Taylorville’s medical vendor), who
authorized Dr. Reich to repair Mayberry’s dentures or create a new set.
About a month later, Dr. Reich made a new set of dentures for Mayberry.
On February 22, 2023, Mayberry filed this lawsuit against, as relevant here,
Wexford and Dr. Reich.
Mayberry’s new dentures arrived the next day, and Dr. Reich adjusted them to
ensure a good fit. Mayberry said that they fit more comfortably when he first tried them
on. Mayberry also sought and received additional time for meals.
But soon thereafter, Mayberry again complained of discomfort, particularly
when eating. Dr. Reich adjusted the new dentures, but Mayberry still found eating
troublesome because the new dentures—which covered the roof of his mouth—affected
his ability to feel food and made him worry that he would gag. He also found it
“disgraceful to remove [his] teeth” while eating with others.
The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that
Mayberry did not provide sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that the defendants

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2324 Page 3
violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The court explained that the record
did not show that Mayberry’s use of dentures—which he could remove to avoid
gagging while he ate—constituted a serious medical need. Regardless, the court
continued, the undisputed evidence showed that Dr. Reich was not deliberately
indifferent to Mayberry’s medical needs. As the court explained, Mayberry’s medical
records reflected that Dr. Reich was “highly responsive” to Mayberry’s needs, and no
evidence suggested that Reich—after replacing Mayberry’s dentures with a well-fitted
pair—knew that Mayberry continued to gag on his food. Without an underlying
constitutional violation, the court added, Wexford could not be held liable for damages.
On appeal, Mayberry argues that the district court overlooked evidence that
difficulty eating with his new dentures caused pain and embarrassment. But even if we
assume that Mayberry could show that such a condition was sufficiently serious,
see, e.g., Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001), he still needed to present
evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that the defendants knew of his
medical need and disregarded it. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2016)
(en banc) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). And nothing in this record
suggests that Dr. Reich ignored any known risk. Mayberry seems to think that Wexford
authorized a surgical consultation that Dr. Reich ignored, but this assertion is not borne
out by the record. Dr. Austin denied Dr. Reich’s referral for a surgical consult, so
Dr. Reich moved forward with alternative treatment—creating a new set of dentures for
Mayberry. Mayberry also asserts that Dr. Reich pursued ineffective treatment by
forgoing dental implants in favor of new dentures, knowing that dentures would not
resolve his gagging. But this assertion, too, lacks support in the record. To address
Mayberry’s gagging, Dr. Reich ground down Mayberry’s first set of dentures, ordered a
soft diet for Mayberry, referred Mayberry for a surgical consultation regarding dental
implants, ordered him a new set of dentures, and adjusted the new dentures to alleviate
discomfort. Based on this evidence, no reasonable jury could find that Dr. Reich treated
Mayberry with deliberate indifference.
In his reply brief, Mayberry belatedly argues that (1) Wexford has a policy to
ignore all prisoners’ claims; (2) dental staff at Big Muddy River Correctional Center
ignored his dental issues; and (3) his inability to chew his food thoroughly causes
digestive problems. But he waived these arguments by raising them for the first time in
reply. See Bradley v. Vill. of Univ. Park, 59 F.4th 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --