JOHNSON v. MIDDLEBROOKS et al

Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
DEONSEY LONTE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:24-cv-209-MW/MJF
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The 	undersigned 	has 	screened 	Plaintiff’s 	second 	amended
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Because the
facts stated by Plaintiff are insufficient to state a claim of deliberate
indifference 	to 	a 	serious 	medical 	need 	against 	Defendants 	Owens,
Thomas, and Snell, the District Court should dismiss these claims.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this civil action
against seven employees of the Management and Training Corporation:
(1) Scott Middlebrooks, (2) H. Hodges, (3) Lieutenant Snell; (4) S. Kyles;
(5) L. Gainer; (6) Lieutenant Owens, and (7) Nurse M. Thomas. Doc. 1 at
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 10

Page 2 of 10
1; Doc. 35 at 1. Plaintiff alleges that while he was confined at the
Graceville Correctional Facility, he was the victim of several inmate-on-
inmate attacks. Plaintiff asserts several claims, including:
• 	an Eighth-Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need against Owens, Thomas, and Snell for
denial of, or delay in providing, medical care on February 5,
2022; and
• 	an Eighth-Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need against Owens, Thomas, and Snell for
denial of, or delay in providing, medical care on February 12,
2022.
Doc. 35 at 27–29.1
A. 	The Attack of February 5, 2022
Plaintiff alleges that on February 5, 2022, four or five fellow
inmates stabbed (twice) Plaintiff with “metal shanks.” Doc. 35 at 11. The
inmates inflicted two “puncture wounds.” Id. at 15.
Plaintiff 	advised 	Lieutenant 	Snell 	that 	he 	had 	been 	stabbed.
Somebody then took Plaintiff to the medical department for a pre-
1 This R&R does not address Plaintiff’s Eighth-Amendment “failure to
protect” claims against Defendants Middlebrooks, MTC, Hodges, Snell,
Kyles, and Gainer.
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 10

Page 3 of 10
confinement 	medical 	exam. 	According 	to 	Plaintiff, 	however, 	nobody
assessed his “puncture wounds” until February 7, 2022. Id.
On February 7, 2022, a non-defendant registered nurse described
Plaintiff’s “puncture wounds” as “small scratches,” with “slight blood”
stains on Plaintiff’s shirt and boxers. Id. at 60. These “small scratches”
scabbed over in just two days. Id. The non-defendant registered nurse
provided no additional medical care. Id.
B. 	The Attack of February 12, 2022
Plaintiff also asserts that on February 12, 2022, fellow inmates
again stabbed Plaintiff. The inmates inflicted a 5½ inch laceration on
Plaintiff’s forearm. Doc. 35 at 16.
Plaintiff alleges that “Lt. Owens, Lt. Snell, and Nurse Thomas all
knew about the 5½ laceration to my forearm, because I went to medical
sick-call [on] March 15th, 2022, and had it documented. Treatment was
immediately applied by LPN D. Galloway in the form of cleansing and
bandaging via sterile strips.” Id. at 26–27.
S TANDARD
The 	District 	Court 	is required to 	review Plaintiff’s 	complaint,
identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 10

Page 4 of 10
thereof, if the complaint “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (applying the same standard to in forma
pauperis proceedings). Determining whether a complaint states a claim
upon which relief can be granted is governed by the standard set forth in
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997). To
survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
D ISCUSSION
To state an Eighth-Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to
a serious medical need, a plaintiff must allege:
1. the plaintiff had a serious medical need;
2. the 	defendant 	was 	deliberately 	indifferent 	to 	the 	plaintiff’s
serious medical need;
3. the plaintiff suffered an injury; and
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 10

Page 5 of 10
4. the defendant’s deliberate 	indifference 	caused the plaintiff’s
injury.
See Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1346–47 (11th Cir. 2022); Goebert v. Lee
Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007).
To allege deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must allege that the
defendant “was actually, subjectively aware that his own conduct caused
a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff.” Wade v. McDade, 106
F.4th 1251, 1262 (11th Cir. 2024) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 839 (1994)). Imputed or collective knowledge “cannot serve as the
basis for a claim of deliberate indifference.” Burnette v. Taylor, 533 F.3d
1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2008).
A. 	Plaintiff’s Injury Suffered in the Attack of February 5, 2022
1. 	Plaintiff Failed to Allege a Serious Medical Need
Plaintiff failed to allege that he suffered from a serious medical
need on February 5, 2022. As noted above, Plaintiff included with his
complaint a copy of his medical form, which was created by a non-
defendant. “A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading
is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). When
exhibits attached to a complaint “contradict the general and conclusory
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 10

Page 6 of 10
allegations of the pleading, the exhibits govern.” Crenshaw v. Lister, 556
F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009); Gill as Next Friend of K.C.R. v. Judd,
941 F.3d 504, 514 (11th Cir. 2019).
The non-defendant nurse noted that Plaintiff suffered two small
scratches or punctures. Doc. 35 at 60. She also noted that Plaintiff had
only “slight blood” on his clothing, and that both injuries had “scabbed
over.” Id. She did not provide any additional treatment for Plaintiff’s
minor injuries. Id.
“A wound assessed as a ‘scratch,’ even if uncomfortable, certainly
falls short of a serious medical need.” Williams v. Corr. Health, 2019 WL
2335941, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 22, 2019), report and recommendation
adopted sub nom. Williams v. Correct Health, 2019 WL 2339266 (S.D. Ga.
May 31, 2019). Various courts have held that such wounds do not
constitute a “serious medical need.” See Crichlow v. Doccs, 2022 WL
6167135, at *12 (S.D. N.Y. Oct. 7, 2022) (finding puncture wound from
ice pick not a serious medical need to which defendants could have been
deliberately indifferent); Roberts v. Samardvich, 909 F. Supp. 594, 605–
06 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (finding no deliberate indifference where defendant
cleaned small puncture wound with hydrogen peroxide and a Band-Aid
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 10

Page 7 of 10
since the wound was not life-threatening and did not pose a risk of
needless pain or lingering disability). For this reason alone, Plaintiff has
failed to state a plausible medical claim against Owens, Thomas, and
Snell regarding any injury Plaintiff suffered on February 5, 2022.
2. 	Plaintiff 	Failed 	to 	Allege 	that 	Snell 	Acted 	with
Deliberate Indifference
With respect to Defendant Snell, Plaintiff also failed to allege the
deliberate indifference element. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to allege that
Snell was subjectively aware that her own conduct caused a substantial
risk of harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that after the February 5 attack,
Snell interviewed Plaintiff, and Plaintiff advised Snell that Plaintiff had
been stabbed and was bleeding. Snell directed Plaintiff to be placed in
confinement, but before placing Plaintiff in confinement, Plaintiff was
taken 	to 	the 	medical 	department 	for 	a 	pre-confinement 	medical
examination.
Plaintiff does not allege—and no inference can be drawn from the
facts Plaintiff alleges—that Snell knew that medical personnel would not
provide 	Plaintiff 	with 	medical 	treatment 	during 	Plaintiff’s 	pre-
confinement medical exam. Plaintiff also does not allege that Snell
directed Nurse Thomas to deny Plaintiff medical care. At best, Plaintiff’s
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 7 of 10

Page 8 of 10
allegations suggest that Snell knew of Plaintiff’s injury—which, as the
medical records indicate, caused only “slight bleeding”—and Plaintiff was
taken to the medical department for a medical exam. This is insufficient
to allege deliberate indifference on the part of Snell.
For this reason, too, 	Plaintiff has failed to 	state 	a deliberate
indifference 	claim 	against 	Snell 	regarding 	any 	injuries 	Plaintiff
sustained in the February 5 attack.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Injury Suffered in the Attack of February 12, 2022
As to the injury Plaintiff suffered in the attack of February 12,
Plaintiff also failed to allege that Owens, Thomas, and Snell acted with
deliberate 	indifference. 	Plaintiff 	merely 	alleges 	that 	LPN 	Galloway
examined 	Plaintiff, 	noted 	the 	injury 	in 	the 	medical 	records, 	and
“immediately” provided appropriate treatment. Doc. 35 at 26.
The fact that a medical professional learned of Plaintiff’s injury—
and immediately provided appropriate treatment for Plaintiff’s injury—
does not lead to an inference that Owens, Thomas, and Snell knew of a
substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff and disregarded that risk.
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 8 of 10

Page 9 of 10
Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need claim against Owens, Thomas, and Snell for the
injury Plaintiff sustained on February 12, 2022.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS 	Plaintiff’s 	deliberate 	indifference 	to 	a 	serious
medical need claim against Owens, Thomas, and Snell for any denial or
delay of medical care on February 5, 2022.
2. 	DISMISS 	Plaintiff’s 	deliberate 	indifference 	to 	a 	serious
medical need claim against Owens, Thomas, and Snell for any denial or
delay of medical care on February 12, 2022.
3. 	REMAND 	the 	case 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for 	further
proceedings.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of February 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and to 	make
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10
recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of
the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and 	recommendation. 	Any
different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not
control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its
objections upon all other parties. A party who fails to
object 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations 	contained 	in 	a 	report 	and
recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to 	challenge 	on
appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1;
28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:24-cv-00209-MW-MJF Document 51 Filed 02/06/26 Page 10 of 10