Jennings Walker v. Loy et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JONATHAN R. JENNINGS WALKER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:24-cv-06030
DETECTIVE RICK LOY
(Interim Jail Administrator of the Clark County Detention Center);
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DONALD-SAMPSON-HUNTER
(and Jail Administrator Trainee);
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER TYLER MCKAY
(CCDC)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOSH WALDRUM
(CCDC) 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable
Christy D. Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF
No. 111. Plaintiff has objected to the R&R. ECF No. 116.0F
1 The Court finds this matter ripe for
consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 15, 2024, bringing claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 following an altercation with a fellow detainee, Ethan Hill (“Hill”), at the Clark County
Detention Center (“CCDC”), that occurred on April 6, 2022. 	ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff asserts that
Defendants Rick Loy, Donald Sampson-Hunter, Tyler McKay, and Josh Waldrum violated
Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights when they failed to protect him from Hill and subsequently failed
to render him proper medical care. 	ECF No. 1.1F
2 	Separate Defendants Loy and Waldrum
1 Plaintiff filed the objection a day late, but the Court will still consider it.
2 Defendants Sampson-Hunter and McKay were not served, and the deadline to do so has passed.
Case 6:24-cv-06030-JTS Document 117 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(collectively “Defendants”) have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. No. 94. Judge Comstock
recommended that the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 94) be granted and Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 111. Plaintiff filed an objection
(ECF No. 116) to the R&R, triggering a de novo review. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356,
358 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting that an objection to a magistrate’s R&R must be timely and specific to
require a de novo review of the R&R).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with
the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a
genuine issue of material fact exists.” Nat’l Bank of Com. v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607
(8th Cir. 1999).
III. DISCUSSION1F
Judge Comstock recommended that Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim be dismissed
because there is no evidence in the summary judgment record establishing that either prong of the
test stated in Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 341 (8th Cir. 2011), is satisfied. ECF No. 111. Next,
Judge Comstock recommended that Plaintiff’s denial of medical care claim be dismissed because
Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of an objectively serious medical need. 	ECF No. 111. 	In
support, Judge Comstock concluded that Plaintiff failed to provide any verifying medical evidence
Case 6:24-cv-06030-JTS Document 117 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
showing that any delay in medical treatment adversely affected Plaintiff’s prognosis for any
condition. ECF No. 111.
Judge Comstock also addressed Plaintiff’s other arguments. 	First, Judge Comstock
concluded that Plaintiff frivolously asserted that Defendant Waldrum’s affidavit was invalid. ECF
No. 111. Next, Judge Comstock determined that Plaintiff frivolously asserted that his religion and
sexuality2F
3 make him per se subject to a known, excessive risk of serious harm, entitling him to
unidentified additional protection in any facility of incarceration. ECF No. 111. Moreover, Judge
Comstock concluded that Plaintiff’s argument that the false PREA Report filed by his cellmate
Hill should have made CCDC staff aware that he was in danger if celled with Hill is contradicted
by the record. ECF No. 111.
Plaintiff’s objection argues that Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s religion and sexual
orientation and that such inmates are at a categorically higher risk of violent attacks. 	ECF No.
116. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants knew that Hill had a pattern of violence and that Hill
had a history of violent attacks on inmates. ECF No. 116. In sum, Plaintiff’s objection asserts that
Plaintiff’s known religion and sexual orientation made him vulnerable to an excessive risk of harm,
and that Defendants still housed him with a known violent individual. ECF No. 116.
Upon review of the summary judgment record, the Court agrees with Judge Comstock and
finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to meet the standards for either a failure to
protect claim or a denial of medical care claim. For Plaintiff to prevail on his failure to protect
claim, he must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) show he was “incarcerated under conditions posing a
substantial risk of serious harm[;]” and (2) show that the prison officials were “deliberately
3 In the Complaint, Plaintiff identifies himself as Jewish and LGBTQ.
Case 6:24-cv-06030-JTS Document 117 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
indifferent [to his] health or safety.” Holden, 663 F.3d at 341. Furthermore, “[c]laims under the
Eighth Amendment require a compensable injury to be greater than de minimis.” 	Irving v.
Dormire, 519 F.3d 441, 448 (8th Cir. 2008).
Here, Plaintiff has offered two arguments that are relevant to the time before the April 6,
2022 fight to support his failure to protect claim. 	First, that Defendants should have known he
was living under a known, excessive risk of serious harm because Plaintiff was openly gay and
Jewish. Plaintiff cites no precedent that such status alone creates excessive risk of serious harm,
and the Court is not aware of any. Further, the Court notes that most failure to protect cases involve
an attacker known to be violent. 	See Vandevender v. Sass, 970 F.3d 972, 976 (8th Cir. 2020).
Second, Plaintiff asserts that a false report made by Hill where Hill claimed Plaintiff said that he
would rape Hill should have put the Defendants on notice that he was in danger of a substantial
risk of harm from Hill. 	ECF No. 94-10. 	However, the false report provides no support for
Defendants knowing of a risk to Plaintiff. ECF No. 94-10. Even if the report were true, Defendants
would have been concerned about Hill’s safety not Plaintiff’s. ECF No. 94-10. Moreover, Plaintiff
agreed in his deposition that there were never any issues between the two before April 6, 2022.
ECF No. 94-7, at 22. Thus, there is nothing in the record that could establish either prong of this
claim.
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to put forth any evidence showing that he suffered more
than a de minimus injury. The only evidence of an injury in the summary judgment record is a
small red mark on Plaintiff’s cheek which can be seen by the video interview on April 8, 2022,
two days after the incident. ECF No. 94-5–6. The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to prove that the
red mark on his cheek is more than a de minimis injury. See Chavero-Linares, 2013 WL 5655559,
Case 6:24-cv-06030-JTS Document 117 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
*8 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (finding that a scratch or cut on cheek of plaintiff that she received when
another inmate threw a chair at her, which required only one pain pill for treatment, was a de
minimis injury). Thus, based on the summary judgment record, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy either
prong of the deliberate indifference test, and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim
fails as a matter of law.
The Court will now address Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants for denial of medical care.
ECF No. 1. To succeed, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he had an objectively serious medical
need, and (2) that the Defendants actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, that serious
medical need. See Ivey v. Audrain Cnty., 968 F.3d 845, 848 (8th Cir. 2020). “A serious medical
need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one that is so obvious
that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Coleman v.
Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the Eighth Circuit has held that, “[a] prisoner
alleging a delay in treatment must present verifying medical evidence that the prison officials
ignored an acute or escalating situation or that these delays adversely affected his prognosis.”
Holden, 663 F.3d at 342 (citation omitted).
To begin, Plaintiff’s ADC dental and medical intake records dated April 14–15, 2022, do
not state a diagnosis of injury, do not have any work restrictions listed, and there is no pain
medication prescribed.3F
4 ECF No. 94-12, at 7, 39–43. Plaintiff’s self-reported “nostril pain” was
the only symptom listed. ECF No. 94-12, at 39–43. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s victim statement and
a grievance he filed are the only written documentation of the alleged injuries from the fight that
4 For clarity, the altercation with Hill happened on April 8, 2022, seven days prior to the dental exam that found no
injuries or other abnormalities. ECF No. 94-12.
Case 6:24-cv-06030-JTS Document 117 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Plaintiff has provided. 	ECF No. 106-1; ECF No. 94-11. 	However, Plaintiff did not request
medical treatment in his victim statement or grievance. ECF No. 106-1; ECF No. 94-11. Also,
Defendant Loy stated in his affidavit that the grievance was forwarded to the medical staff for
review on the medical staff’s next date of visit. 	ECF No. 94-3, at 4. 	According to Defendant
Loy’s affidavit, Plaintiff did not make another request. ECF No. 94-3, at 4. Therefore, Defendant
Loy assumed Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were resolved or not urgent. ECF No. 94-3, at 4.
Here, Plaintiff did not request medical treatment, and Plaintiff’s medical records did not
diagnosis any serious injuries. Also, Plaintiff did not provide any verifying medical evidence to
Defendants. 	The victim statement and the grievance are not verifying medical evidence of a
serious injury diagnosed by a physician and, even if they were, there is no evidence that Defendants
ignored the victim statement or the grievance. See Holden, 663 F.3d at 342; see Rahija, 114 F.3d
at 784. Furthermore, the alleged injuries from the victim statement and grievance are completely
contradicted by the medical records. ECF No. 106-1; ECF No. 94-12. Therefore, the Court finds
that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to meet his burden of demonstrating (1) that he
had an objectively serious medical need, and (2) that the Defendants actually knew of, but
deliberately disregarded, that serious medical need. See Ivey, 968 F.3d, 848.
Upon review, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No.
111) in its entirety. 	Further, the deadline to serve Defendants Sampson-Hunter and McKay has
passed. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Loy and Waldrum (ECF
No. 94) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
Case 6:24-cv-06030-JTS Document 117 Filed 10/13/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of October, 2026.
s/ John Thomas Shepherd
John Thomas Shepherd
United States District Judge
Case 6:24-cv-06030-JTS Document 117 Filed 10/13/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>