Jasper L. Frazier v. Naveen Rajoli

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 23, 2023*
Decided June 26, 2023
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 22-3007
JASPER L. FRAZIER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NAVEEN RAJOLI, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:19-cv-00321-JPH-MJD
James Patrick Hanlon,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jasper Frazier, a state prisoner, appeals the summary judgment rejecting his
claims that a prison doctor and two nurses were deliberately indifferent toward his
carpal tunnel syndrome. Frazier was not diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome until
several months after he first reported symptoms. Frazier sued the defendants for
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 4 --

No. 22-3007 Page 2
deliberate indifference in not diagnosing this condition sooner. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that Frazier
had not provided enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that the defendants
had violated the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.
We recite the facts in the light most favorable to Frazier, noting disputes where
relevant. Miles v. Anton, 42 F.4th 777, 780 (7th Cir. 2022). Frazier, incarcerated at the
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in Carlisle, Indiana, suffered painfully swollen
hands while working as a dishwasher and sanitation employee. From late 2018 through
mid-2019, he worked in those jobs more than ten hours per day, five to six days per
week. He began experiencing symptoms in early November 2018, soon after starting his
dishwashing job, and he saw Nurse Barbara Riggs. Riggs examined Frazier’s hands and
did not observe any weakness, discoloration, or swelling. She believed that his
symptoms were related to the repetitive motions required of a dishwasher. She taught
him exercises to prepare his hands for his job, noted that he had an active Tylenol
prescription (which she encouraged him to continue taking), and told him to come back
to the health unit if his problems persisted. In December 2018, Frazier’s sister contacted
the prison and asked that he be seen by a doctor because he was still feeling pain in his
hands. A health services administrator, Kimberly Hobson, had Frazier placed on a
doctor’s schedule. The doctor prescribed him prednisone, a steroid, for ten days. Frazier
said it did not help his pain.
Frazier did not seek medical treatment again until late May 2019, when he met
with a nurse and filed two follow-up requests to see a doctor. Riggs responded to one of
the requests and told Frazier that a doctor’s visit was scheduled. When no visit was
forthcoming, he filed an informal grievance with Hobson in early June. Another
administrative employee responded that he was scheduled to see a doctor on June 12.
On June 12, Frazier met with prison doctor Naveen Rajoli regarding his hand
pain. The doctor did little to relieve Frazier’s pain, although the parties disagree about
the specific treatment Frazier received. Frazier, whose version of events we accept for
purposes of summary judgment, see Miles, 42 F.4th at 780, stated in his deposition that
Dr. Rajoli gave his hands only “some little taps” before saying nothing could be done.
In support, Frazier points to a “chronic care visit” report dated June 12 that lists his
present illnesses as prostate hypertrophy and gastroesophageal reflux disease but
makes no reference to any hand injury or treatment. But Dr. Rajoli says that he assessed
Frazier’s hand, did not notice any swelling or discoloration, and told Frazier to continue
taking his prescribed Tylenol and over-the-counter pain medication. Dr. Rajoli provided

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 22-3007 Page 3
a copy of the June 12 “chronic care visit” report that mirrored Frazier’s but with one
exception—Dr. Rajoli’s copy added another entry to the list of present illnesses: “Follow
Up of Pain to the finger of left hand.”1 That entry noted Frazier’s complaint of finger
pain with excessive use and his prescription for Tylenol.
One week after the visit with Dr. Rajoli, Frazier saw a different doctor who
diagnosed him with carpal tunnel syndrome, prescribed a wrist brace and prednisone,
and gave him six weeks off from work.
After receiving his diagnosis, Frazier corresponded in writing with Riggs and
Hobson about administrative matters. Riggs responded to Frazier’s scheduling
questions and updated Frazier about his brace, prescription for prednisone, and leave
from work. As for Hobson, she reviewed Frazier’s medical records when he filed a
grievance complaining about Dr. Rajoli’s treatment on June 12, and she determined that
his care was adequate. Additionally, she responded to an informal grievance from
Frazier after his brace required repairs in the fall of 2019. Frazier asked why the repairs
took so long, and she explained that Velcro on the brace had to be replaced. At the end
of 2019, Frazier was transferred to a different prison.
Frazier sued Dr. Rajoli, Riggs, and Hobson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that
they acted with deliberate indifference when they failed to diagnose him with carpal
tunnel syndrome for over eight months (from October 2018 to June 2019). He also
argued that Dr. Rajoli ignored his condition at the June 12 appointment by examining
his hands perfunctorily and providing no treatment; that Riggs disregarded his injury
when she assessed his hands in November and later put up “barriers” to his
administrative requests that prevented him from receiving adequate care; and that
Hobson needlessly prevented him from getting his brace repaired quickly and was
generally responsible for his delayed care in her role overseeing the health unit’s
administration.
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. With
regard to Dr. Rajoli, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that the
doctor did not examine Frazier’s hands or that he believed that Frazier’s pain required
additional pain medication or treatment. As for Nurse Riggs, the court concluded that
no jury could find that she was deliberately indifferent when she treated Frazier—she
provided exercises to support his hands and told him to come back if his problems
1 The time and date stamp on this copy reflects that the document was generated
on June 13, the following morning. Frazier’s version was stamped June 12.

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 22-3007 Page 4
persisted—and nothing in the record suggested that she deliberately delayed Frazier’s
overall care. Finally, regarding Hobson, the court saw no evidence that she was aware
that Frazier was suffering a serious medical need and disregarded that need, or that she
was responsible for any delay in having his splint repaired.
On appeal, Frazier continues to argue that all three defendants played a role in
delaying his carpal tunnel diagnosis by over eight months. But the district court
explained that Frazier provided no evidence that the defendants caused such a delay,
and Frazier makes no arguments that the district court erred. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8);
Yasinskyy v. Holder, 724 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 2013) (“We will not entertain …
undeveloped legal arguments.”).
Frazier also generally disputes the contents of the medical record that Dr. Rajoli
submitted to the district court—an argument that we understand to mean that the
district court wrongly credited the doctor’s version of events on June 12. But even if we
accept Frazier’s version of events that day (that Dr. Rajoli briefly examined his hands
and said he could not help Frazier), Frazier still failed to introduce evidence from which
a jury could find that the doctor acted with deliberate indifference. To show that
Dr. Rajoli was deliberately indifferent to his hand pain, Frazier would have to supply
evidence that the doctor “[knew] of and disregard[ed] an excessive risk” to Frazier’s
health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); see also Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d
403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence must show doctor’s treatment was “blatantly
inappropriate”). Dr. Rajoli attested that he believed his treatment was appropriate, and
Frazier points to no evidence indicating otherwise.
Lastly, in his reply brief, Frazier asserts for the first time that the defendants
(presumably Hobson) “played mind psychology games” with him while his brace was
repaired. But arguments introduced only in a reply brief are waived, White v. United
States, 8 F.4th 547, 552 (7th Cir. 2021), and regardless, the district court appropriately
refuted this argument when it concluded that no evidence showed that Hobson was
responsible for any delay in repairing his brace.
We have considered Frazier’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --