Nuuh Amir Na’im v. James Beck, Doctor, Arkansas Department of Corrections/Wellpath (Cummins…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2711
___________________________
Nuuh Amir Na’im,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,
v.
James Beck, Doctor, Arkansas Department of Corrections/Wellpath (Cummins
Unit)(originally names as Beck); Carol Chisom, RN, Director of Nurses, Arkansas
Department of Corrections/Wellpath (Cummins Unit)(originally names as C
Chisom); Lerizza Nunag, APRN, Arkansas Department of Corrections/Wellpath
(Cummins Unit)(originally named as Nunag); Rose Newby, APARN, Arkansas
Department of Corrections/Wellpath (Cummins Unit)(originally named as
Newby); Shakita Green, CNA, Arkansas Department of Corrections/Wellpath
(Cummins Unit)(originally named as Green),
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: November 18, 2025
Filed: April 15, 2026
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 9 --

COLLOTON, Chief Judge.
Nuuh Amir Na’im, an inmate in Arkansas, sued medical staff from the
Arkansas Department of Corrections and alleged violations of the Eighth
Amendment. The district court* dismissed some of Na’im’s claims for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, and the court granted summary judgment for the
defendants on the remaining claim. We affirm.
I.
Na’im dislocated his right pinky finger while playing basketball at Cummins
Unit, a state prison facility, on May 12, 2021. He visited the prison’s infirmary, and
staff placed his hand in a splint and administered Ibuprofen. Medical staff also
ordered an x-ray. The next day, Na’im submitted an emergency grievance that said
he was still in pain. In response, a nurse at the prison’s infirmary gave Na’im a dose
of Ibuprofen and placed him on the “medical lay-in list for an emergency x-ray.” The
x-ray revealed that Na’im’s finger was dislocated and had an “abnormal widening of
the scapholunate interval,” but there was “no definite fracture.”
On May 19, Dr. James Beck and Nurse Lerizza Nunag attempted to realign
Na’im’s dislocated finger. They were unsuccessful, so Beck and Nunag provided
Na’im with pain medication, gave him a ketorolac injection to manage pain, and
placed his finger in a splint. At Beck’s direction, Nunag requested approval for
Na’im to see an orthopedic surgeon. Na’im consulted with an orthopedic surgeon on
June 14, and the surgeon reset the finger on June 24.
*The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, now deceased, adopting the recommended disposition of the
Honorable Benecia B. Moore, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 9 --

During the relevant time period, the Department of Corrections maintained and
published an Inmate Grievance Procedure policy for the resolution of inmates’
complaints. At the first step, an inmate submits a written complaint to facilitate
potential informal resolution of the matter. The policy directs inmates to “write a
brief statement that is specific as to the substance of the issue or complaint to include
the date, place, personnel involved or witnesses.”
If an inmate is not able to resolve the matter informally, then he may proceed
to the second step of filing a formal complaint. The formal complaint must be limited
to the issues specified in the step-one grievance, and the policy specifies that “[a]ny
new issues added to the form will not be considered.” When the grievance is medical,
a health services administrator receives and responds to the formal grievance. If an
inmate disagrees with the administrator’s response, then the inmate may appeal the
issue to a prison director.
Na’im submitted a grievance relating to his dislocated finger. He filed a step-
one grievance on May 17, 2021, as follows:
I had an X-Ray on my hand because my finger was dislocated and have
a torn ligament. It has been injured since 5/12/21 and the infirmary has
allowed me to go unseen by a provider and/or doctor. The nurse have
assigned me 800 mg of Ibuprofen and Tylenol 3 for pain and I still have
not seen a doctor or provider and I am still in severe pain.
A prison staff member responded: “You are currently scheduled to see the provider
on 5/19/21.”
On May 27, after Beck tried to realign the finger, Na’im filed a step-two formal
grievance. He conveyed that he was still in “severe pain” and unable to use his
injured hand. The administrator concluded on July 2 that Na’im’s grievance was
without merit:
-3-

-- 3 of 9 --

Records reflect you were seen by APN Nunag on 5/19/21, your x-ray
was reviewed with you. APN Nunag consulted with Dr. Beck, you were
given Toradol for pain and Dr. Beck attempted to align your dislocated
finger. He was unsuccessful in this attempt. The Providers ordered a
finger splint and entered a consult request for an evaluation by an
orthopedic doctor. You were seen via telemed on 6/14/21 a
recommendation for possible surgical intervention made and an
appointment was scheduled and held on 6/24/21.
In conclusion, you have been seen and received treatment for your finger
injury, there was no delay in treatment; therefore I find this grievance
without merit.
Na’im appealed the administrator’s decision to a prison director. Na’im
complained about a week-long delay between his injury on May 12 and the medical
appointment on May 19. He cited the time elapsed between the May 19 appointment
and his surgery on June 24. Na’im also asserted that the attempts to realign his finger
may have injured or damaged it further. The director responded to Na’im’s appeal
on August 9, 2021:
Your appeal states you were injured on May 12, 2021 and were not seen
until May 19, 2021. You state Dr. Beck and APN Nunag tried to set it
and put it in a splint until you were seen by the orthopedist via
telemedicine on June 14, 2021. You state you had your finger surgically
reset on June 24, 2021. You stated the whole process took 43, days,
which is an unreasonable delay. You state you are still going back and
forth to UAMS.
According to the grievance policy, an appeal cannot raise new or
additional issues or complaints.
The medical department appropriately addressed your complaint as you
were seen in sick call on May 12, 2021 as a walk-in for your finger and
-4-

-- 4 of 9 --

referred to the provider, which you were seen by on May 19, 2021;
therefore, this appeal is without merit.
Na’im sued and alleged that members of the prison medical staff were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need arising from the dislocated finger.
Na’im alleged that he suffered pain and further injury due to the delay in treatment
for his finger and the attempt to realign the dislocated finger.
The district court determined that Na’im failed properly to exhaust the claims
alleging delay of care and dismissed those claims against all defendants. The court
granted summary judgment for Beck and Nunag on the claim regarding care
administered on May 19. Na’im appeals only the dismissal of his claims against Beck
and Nunag.
II.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that no action shall be brought by
a prisoner with respect to prison conditions “until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). And “it is the prison’s requirements,
and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.” Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007).
On appeal, Na’im contends that he exhausted a claim against Beck and Nunag
based on alleged delay in medical care between May 12 and May 19. He argues that
the “crux” of his grievance was always the lack of timely care, and that this claim of
delay was exhausted and addressed by prison officials.
We conclude that Na’im failed to exhaust a claim against Beck and Nunag for
alleged delay because he did not name them as persons who allegedly violated his
rights by causing delay. The prison policy requires that a grievance must
-5-

-- 5 of 9 --

“specifically name each individual involved in order that a proper investigation and
response may be completed.” The grievance form direct inmates to list the “name of
personnel involved.” The policy also warns inmates that if they do not “exhaust their
administrative remedies as to all defendants at all levels of the grievance procedure
before filing a Section 1983 lawsuit,” then the lawsuit will be dismissed.
During the grievance process, Na’im did not name Beck and Nunag as
individuals allegedly responsible for delay between his injury on May 12 and his
medical visit on May 19. Na’im’s step-one grievance states that “the infirmary has
allowed me to go unseen by a provider and/or doctor,” and it mentions only an
unnamed nurse who provided him with pain medication on May 12. Na’im’s step-
two formal grievance also did not name Beck or Nunag.
Na’im maintains that a claim against Beck and Nunag was nonetheless
exhausted because prison officials resolved such a claim on the merits. This court has
said that “a grievance that could have been denied for failure to comply with a
procedural requirement is nonetheless exhausted for PLRA purposes if the
institutional decision-maker instead denied it on the merits.” Hammett v. Cofield, 681
F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
Neither the administrator nor the director, however, addressed whether Beck
and Nunag impermissibly delayed the provision of care between May 12 and May 19.
The administrator considered Na’im’s complaint that “the infirmary” unreasonably
delayed, and concluded that “there was no delay in treatment.” The decision did not
discuss any role that Beck or Nunag played in scheduling Na’im’s medical care
between May 12 and May 19. On a step-three grievance appeal, the director
concluded that “[t]he medical department appropriately addressed your complaint as
you were seen in sick call on May 12, 2021 as a walk-in for your finger and referred
to the provider, which you were seen by on May 19, 2021; therefore, this appeal is
without merit.” Again, the decision did not identify Beck and Nunag as the focus of
-6-

-- 6 of 9 --

the grievance or address what role, if any, either of them played in determining the
timing of Na’im’s care. Na’im did not properly exhaust a claim against Beck and
Nunag based on alleged delay between May 12 and May 19.
Nor did Na’im exhaust a claim against Beck and Nunag for delay between the
medical visit on May 19 and the surgery on June 24. Na’im’s step-one and step-two
grievances did not complain about delay during that period, so the administrator’s
finding that the grievance was “without merit” did not address or exhaust such a
claim. The director’s decision on the step-three grievance appeal also did not address
delay between May 19 to June 24 on the merits. The prison’s grievance policy states
that any new issues added to the grievance after step one “will not be considered.”
The director’s decision on the grievance appeal acknowledged that Na’im’s appeal
complained of the delay between May 19 and June 24, but then concluded that
“[a]ccording to the grievance policy, an appeal cannot raise new or additional issues
or complaints.” The decision, in a freestanding paragraph, addressed on the merits
only the care administered on May 12 and May 19.
III.
Na’im next challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Beck
and Nunag regarding the care administered on May 19. Na’im exhausted his
administrative remedies on this claim. To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim of
deliberate indifference to a medical need, Na’im must show that he suffered from an
objectively serious medical need and that prison officials actually knew of, but
deliberately disregarded, that need. Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th
Cir. 1997). There is no dispute that Na’im’s dislocated finger resulted in a serious
medical need.
To make a submissible case of deliberate indifference, Na’im must present
sufficient evidence to support a finding that Beck and Nunag recognized that a
-7-

-- 7 of 9 --

substantial risk of harm existed and knew their conduct was inappropriate in light of
that risk. De Rossitte v. Correct Care Sols., LLC., 22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022).
This subjective standard is akin to criminal recklessness. Id. Negligence or
disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional
violation. Cejvanovic v. Ludwick, 923 F.3d 503, 507 (8th Cir. 2019).
Na’im argues that Beck and Nunag were deliberately indifferent because they
“took turns repeatedly snatching and jerking Mr. Na’im’s finger” despite an x-ray
technician’s recommendation that Na’im should be taken to the hospital. Na’im
further argues that the attempts to realign his finger amounted to a wanton infliction
of unnecessary pain.
The record does not support Na’im’s claim that Beck and Nunag were
deliberately indifferent. Beck and Nunag treated Na’im’s dislocation by attempting
to realign the finger. They addressed Na’im’s pain on May 19 by prescribing
Ibuprofen and administering a ketorolac injection immediately after their attempts to
realign the finger. When the attempts to realign the finger failed, Dr. Beck also
ordered an orthopedic consultation for Na’im, and nurse Nunag submitted the request
on the same day.
A defense expert, Dr. Shipley, opined that “the medical care and treatment
provided to Mr. Na’im by Dr. Beck and Nurse Nunag on May 19, 2021 was
appropriate, adequate and timely.” “In the face of medical records indicating that
treatment was provided and physician affidavits indicating that the care provided was
adequate, an inmate cannot create a question of fact by merely stating that she did not
feel she received adequate treatment.” Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1240. That an x-ray
technician might have proceeded differently does not support a finding that the
physician and nurse were deliberately indifferent. A debatable treatment decision
does not meet the demanding standard for deliberate indifference under the Eighth
Amendment.
-8-

-- 8 of 9 --

The record shows Dr. Beck and Nunag addressed Na’im’s pain, attempted to
correct his finger’s dislocation, and referred Na’im to an orthopedic surgeon upon
determining the finger could not be realigned in the prison infirmary. No reasonable
jury could find Beck and Nunag were deliberately indifferent to Na’im’s serious
medical need on May 19.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-9-

-- 9 of 9 --