Terron Price v. Lori Patterson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 30, 2024 *
Decided October 31, 2024
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2255
TERRON PRICE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LORI PATTERSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 20-cv-286-SMY
Staci M. Yandle,
Judge.
O R D E R
Terron Price, an Illinois prisoner, maintains that a prison nurse, Lori Patterson,
treated him with deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment by
delaying his access to medical care. The district court granted Patterson’s motion 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. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-2255 Page 2
summary judgment because there was no evidence that she knew of, and consciously
disregarded, a serious risk to Price’s health. We affirm.
We recount the facts in the light most favorable to Price, the party opposing
summary judgment. McDaniel v. Syed, 115 F.4th 805, 816 (7th Cir. 2024). Price injured his
back on a job at the prison when he lifted a trashcan into the dumpster. Immediately
afterward, he experienced great pain, could not walk, and had to lay down on the floor.
He reported the injury to his supervisors, one of whom contacted the prison’s health
care unit. According to Price, the supervisor said she spoke to a nurse named either Lori
or Laura,1 who said that he needed to submit a sick slip before he could be seen by the
health care unit. Price filled out a sick slip, and the supervisor brought it to the health
care unit. Price was not seen by the health care unit until ten days later. He was given
Tylenol, which did not relieve his pain.
His back pain persisted. Over the next two years, he went to the health care unit
at least seven times complaining of back pain. He was referred to a physician who
prescribed medication and physical therapy.
Price filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that Patterson delayed
his access to medical care in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The
district court granted Patterson’s motion for summary judgment. The court explained
that even if Price’s back injury were assumed to be objectively serious, no evidence
suggested that Patterson knew of and consciously disregarded a serious risk to his
health. Her only involvement with Price’s care, the court stated, was informing his
supervisor that he could not be seen without first filling out a sick slip, and the failure
to see him without a sick slip—given the absence of emergency symptoms—did not rise
to the level of deliberate indifference.
On appeal Price argues that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that
Patterson was made aware of his back injury and failed to take reasonable steps to treat
it. But even if we assumed, as did the district court, that his injury was an objectively
1 Whether Lori Patterson was the proper defendant was debated in the district
court. Patterson, relying on the deposition testimony of Price’s supervisor that the
nurse’s name was Laura, denied that she was the nurse contacted by Price’s supervisor.
But Price testified at deposition that the supervisor told him the nurse’s name was
either Lori or Laura. Regardless, this discrepancy is immaterial, as Patterson no longer
presses the argument.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-2255 Page 3
serious condition, Price offered no evidence showing that Patterson had a sufficiently
culpable state of mind. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Although we
construe the facts and draw reasonable inferences in Price’s favor, he must offer
evidence to meet his burden of proof. Quinn v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 8 F.4th 557,
567 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). He did not do
so. He provided no evidence that Patterson’s minimal involvement—telling his
supervisor that the health care unit required a sick slip before he could be seen—
reflected any conscious disregard of his medical needs.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --