`JB WHITELOW, JR.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`EATON, C.O.; SGT. DRADA, C.O.;
`SGT. COBB, C.O.; SMALL, C.O.;
`ALLEN, C.O.; RUSSELL, C.O.;
`MARTIN, C.O.; ASHLYNN GONTHIER;
`THOMAS WELLINGTON; L. WADHWAN;
`CHAMBERS, Sgt.; PIRTLE, Sgt.; and TROUP, Officer;
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
` No. 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:
`920
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`PLAINTIFF'S DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE CLAIM
`
`Plaintiff JB Whitelow, Jr. is an inmate currently incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional
`
`Facility ("Wabash Valley"). He filed this lawsuit alleging violations of his First Amendment,
`
`Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.1 Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment, [Filing No. 46], which the Court ruled on in a February 26, 2025 Order, [Filing No. 67].
`
`Specifically, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Mr. Whitelow's
`
`Eighth Amendment excessive force and conditions of confinement claims, First Amendment
`
`retaliation claim, and Fourteenth Amendment race-based equal protection claim. [Filing No. 67.]
`
`The Court took under advisement whether Mr. Whitelow's Eighth Amendment deliberate
`
`indifference to medical care claim should proceed because neither side offered adequate argument
`
`on the claim, but the Court's review of the record and case law appeared to establish that
`
`
`1 These are the claims which the Court found should proceed after the Court screened Mr.
`Whitelow's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). [Filing No. 11;
`Filing No. 14.]
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:
`921
`
`Defendants were entitled to summary judgment. [Filing No. 67 at 51-54.] So, pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(2), which allows a court to grant summary judgment "on grounds
`
`not raised by a party" as long as the parties are provided notice and a reasonable time to respond
`
`to the Court's intention to do so, the Court explained its view of the claim in light of the record and
`
`case law, notified Mr. Whitelow of its intention to grant summary judgment in Defendants' favor
`
`on the claim pursuant to the Court's view of the case law and record, and ordered Mr. Whitelow to
`
`file a response. [Filing No. 67 at 51-54.] The Court also noted that it would order further argument
`
`from Defendants if it deemed it necessary after Mr. Whitelow's response. [Filing No. 67 at 51.]
`
`
`
`Mr. Whitelow has filed his Response, [Filing No. 68], and the Court does not deem it
`
`necessary for further argument from the Defendants. The Court therefore proceeds to analyze the
`
`remaining claim of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical care.
`
`I.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a trial is unnecessary because
`
`there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment
`
`as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment,
`
`the Court views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, including giving
`
`that party the benefit of conflicting evidence, and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's
`
`favor. Ziccarelli v. Dart, 35 F.4th 1079, 1083 (7th Cir. 2022); Khungar v. Access Cmty. Health
`
`Network, 985 F.3d 565, 572-73 (7th Cir. 2021); Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903,
`
`907 (7th Cir. 2008). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary
`
`judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-finder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th
`
`Cir. 2014). A court only has to consider the materials cited by the parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(c)(3); it need not "scour the record" for evidence that might be relevant. Grant v. Trs. of Ind.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:
`922
`
`Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 573-74 (7th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). "Taking the facts in the light most
`
`favorable to the non-moving party does not mean that the facts must come only from the
`
`nonmoving party. Sometimes the facts taken in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
`
`come from the party moving for summary judgment or from other sources." Gupta v. Melloh, 19
`
`F.4th 990, 997 (7th Cir. 2021).
`
`A party seeking summary judgment must inform the district court of the basis for its motion
`
`and identify the record evidence it contends demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of
`
`material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Summary judgment is not a
`
`time to be coy: conclusory statements not grounded in specific facts are not enough." Daugherty
`
`v. Page, 906 F.3d 606, 611 (7th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). Rather, at the summary judgment stage,
`
`"[t]he parties are required to put their evidentiary cards on the table." Sommerfield v. City of
`
`Chicago, 863 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2017).
`
`Whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party must
`
`support the asserted fact by citing to particular parts of the record, including depositions,
`
`documents, or affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Failure to properly support a fact in
`
`opposition to a movant's factual assertion can result in the movant's fact being considered
`
`undisputed, and potentially in the grant of summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
`
`When the evidence in the case involves a video of the relevant events, "[a] twist on the
`
`usual standard of review is at play." Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2016). "When
`
`the evidence includes a videotape of the relevant events, the Court should not adopt the nonmoving
`
`party's version of the events when that version is blatantly contradicted by the videotape." Id.
`
`(citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379-80 (2007)). In other words, the Court "can rely on clear
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:
`923
`
`and conclusive videos if 'they firmly settle[ ] a factual issue.'" Manery v. Lee, 124 F.4th 1073,
`
`1077 n.5 (7th Cir. 2025) (quoting Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 944 (7th Cir. 2018)).
`
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The facts stated below are not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary judgment
`
`standard requires, the undisputed facts and the disputed evidence are presented in the light most
`
`favorable to "the party against whom the motion under consideration is made." Premcor USA, Inc.
`
`v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 400 F.3d 523, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2005). The full factual background is
`
`set forth in the Court's February 26, 2025 Order. [Filing No. 67.] Here, the Court provides only
`
`the facts relevant to Mr. Whitelow's remaining deliberate indifference claim. [Filing No. 67.]
`
`A. May 4 - Mr. Whitelow Arrives at Wabash Valley
`
`In the evening on May 4, 2020, Mr. Whitelow was transferred to the Secured Confinement
`
`Unit ("SCU") at Wabash Valley from another facility. [Filing No. 47-1 at 9; Filing No. 47-1 at 17;
`
`Filing No. 47-2 at 1.] When Mr. Whitelow arrived, Sgt. Eaton was the supervising sergeant over
`
`the SCU unit where Mr. Whitelow was placed. [Filing No. 47-1 at 69; Filing No. 47-2 at 1.] Mr.
`
`Whitelow was escorted to his cell by Sgt. Eaton and two additional officers. [Filing No. 47-12 at
`
`00:28-00:42; see Filing No. 50; Filing No. 51.] The officers guided Mr. Whitelow into his cell
`
`before exiting and signaling another officer to close the door. [Filing No. 47-12 at 00:28-01:25.]
`
`Once the door was securely closed, Mr. Whitelow approached the door, and Sgt. Eaton and
`
`the other officers utilized the cuff port to remove Mr. Whitelow's hand restraints. [Filing No. 47-
`
`12 at 01:25-03:39.] After Mr. Whitelow's hand restraints were removed, Mr. Whitelow took a step
`
`back inside his cell and the video shows an obstructed view of an open and clear cuff port. [Filing
`
`No. 47-12 at 03:35-03:36.] Sgt. Eaton then took a step forward to close the cuff port, and
`
`simultaneously, Mr. Whitelow took a step forward within his cell. [Filing No. 47-12 at 03:35-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:
`924
`
`03:37.] Sgt. Eaton lifted the cuff port closed with one hand and took a half step backward, pausing
`
`for about a half-second before beginning to walk away with one of the other officers. [Filing No.
`
`47-12 at 03:37-03:42.] Mr. Whitelow then gently pushed open the cuff port about two seconds
`
`later. [Filing No. 47-12 at 03:41-03:45.] Sgt. Eaton turned around, gently closed the cuff port and
`
`held it shut, while another officer retrieved a key and locked the cuff port closed. [Filing No. 47-
`
`12 at 03:45-03:52.] Once the cuff port was securely closed, Mr. Whitelow walked away from his
`
`cell door, and Sgt. Eaton and the other officers exited the range. [Filing No. 47-12 at 03:45-04:03.]
`
`But before exiting the range, Mr. Whitelow requested medical attention for his hand,2 and Sgt.
`
`Eaton said: "That will teach you not to put your hands on staff!" [Filing No. 63 at 6 (Affidavit of
`
`Mr. Whitelow).] "No correctional officer contacted medical for any assistance." [Filing No. 63 at
`
`6.]
`
`B. May 5 - Mr. Whitelow Is Moved to Another Cell
`
`The next day, on May 5, 2020, Major Russel, who was not present when Mr. Whitelow
`
`arrived, noticed that Mr. Whitelow had mistakenly been placed in the wrong range. [Filing No.
`
`47-3 at 1.] Major Russel contacted Wabash Valley's Count Office, Mr. Whitelow's cell assignment
`
`was corrected, and he was moved to a cell with a camera. [Filing No. 47-3 at 1.] Mr. Whitelow
`
`also informed Major Russell that his hand had been injured. [Filing No. 47-3 at 2.]
`
`
`2 Mr. Whitelow alleged that Sgt. Eaton used excessive force when closing the cuff port and that he
`trapped and crushed Mr. Whitelow's fingers inside it, injuring his hand. [See Filing No. 67 at 5
`(citations omitted).] However, in its February 26, 2025 Order, the Court found that the video
`evidence clearly contradicted Mr. Whitelow's version of events and established that Sgt. Eaton
`used only de minimis force when closing Mr. Whitelow's cuff port and that Mr. Whitelow's hand
`was not inside the cuff port when Sgt. Eaton closed it. [Filing No. 67 at 5 n.4 (citations omitted).]
`As described later, it is undisputed that Mr. Whitelow sustained a hand injury at some point in his
`first few days at Wabash Valley, but the Court found that the video evidence contradicted the
`possibility that it was sustained from Sgt. Eaton's closure of the cuff port. [Filing No. 67 at 18-
`21.]
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:
`925
`
`C. May 5 - Mr. Whitelow Covers His Camera and Cell Window
`
`In the evening of May 5, 2020, while in his cell with a camera, Mr. Whitelow continuously
`
`covered the camera and his cell windows. [Filing No. 47-13 (a 58:49-minute-long video depicting
`
`Mr. Whitelow continuously covering his camera and his door); Filing No. 47-16 (a 1:01:08-hour-
`
`long video depicting the same).] Just after 6:30 p.m. on May 5, 2020, Officer Martin approached
`
`Mr. Whitelow's cell and informed him that he was not permitted to cover his cell's window or
`
`camera as he had been doing but that he was allowed to cover the camera to use the toilet. [Filing
`
`No. 47-14 at 0:59-5:05; Filing No. 63 at 7.] Correctional staff's ability "to monitor offenders placed
`
`in camera cells is an important function for the safety and security of the prison." [Filing No. 47-
`
`4 at 3.] Mr. Whitelow "showed [his] hand injuries to Officer Martin and she said [he] would be
`
`seen by medical staff soon" and "even said that she would email medical staff and internal affairs
`
`to speed things up, but she never emailed medical staff." [Filing No. 63 at 7.] Officer Martin
`
`emailed internal affairs, however, and informed them that Mr. Whitelow was "requesting to speak
`
`with one of [them]" and that he was "adamant about it." [Filing No. 47-4 at 3; Filing No. 47-4 at
`
`11.]
`
`Mr. Whitelow eventually complied and removed the cover from his cell's camera and
`
`window. [Filing No. 47-4 at 2.] Defendant Martin exited the range and wrote Mr. Whitelow "a
`
`misbehavior report . . . for covering the camera to use the toilet." [Filing No. 47-14 at 05:01-05:06;
`
`Filing No. 63 at 7.]
`
`Shortly thereafter, Mr. Whitelow resumed covering his cell's window and camera. [Filing
`
`No. 47-4 at 2; Filing No. 47-14 at 10:03-41:55.] Officer Martin requested the help of Sgt. Eaton
`
`due to Mr. Whitelow repeatedly covering his window and camera. [Filing No. 47-4 at 2.] Officer
`
`Martin eventually went to Mr. Whitelow's cell to communicate with him to stop covering his cell's
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:
`926
`
`camera and window. [Filing No. 47-2 at 2; Filing No. 47-4 at 2; Filing No. 47-15 at 04:55-07:32.]
`
`Mr. Whitelow kept his window covering up while communicating with Sgt. Eaton, who ordered
`
`Mr. Whitelow to uncover his camera and keep it uncovered. [Filing No. 47-2 at 2; Filing No. 47-
`
`15 at 04:55-07:32.] Mr. Whitelow asked for medical attention and Sgt. Eaton "claimed that [Mr.
`
`Whitelow's] hand injuries were accidental and not [Sgt. Eaton's] fault." [Filing No. 63 at 7.] Mr.
`
`Whitelow told Sgt. Eaton that he disagreed and that he "would only talk to Sgt. Eaton after [he]
`
`finished writing the grievance and/or received medical attention." [Filing No. 63 at 7.] Sgt. Eaton
`
`ordered Mr. Whitelow "to submit to mechanical restraints so that his camera could be uncovered."
`
`[Filing No. 47-2 at 2.] Mr. Whitelow removed the window and camera coverings and went near
`
`the back of his cell where he began writing a grievance against Sgt. Eaton. [Filing No. 63 at 7;
`
`Filing No. 47-15 at 07:50-09:12; see Filing No. 47-16 at 46:25-46:40.] At the same time, another
`
`officer assisting Sgt. Eaton (Sgt. Barker, a non-party in this case), sprayed Oleoresin Capsicum
`
`("OC Spray") into Mr. Whitelow's cell via the cuff port. [Filing No. 47-2 at 2; Filing No. 47-15 at
`
`17:44-17:48; Filing No. 47-16 at 46:42-46:46.] Sgt. Eaton then handcuffed Mr. Whitelow "in an
`
`aggressive way." [Filing No. 63 at 7.] Mr. Whitelow was taken to a decontamination shower.
`
`[Filing No. 47-15 at 23:13-23:24; Filing No. 47-17 at 06:25-17:31.] Mr. Whitelow was thereafter
`
`escorted to the nurse station, where a nurse "told officers to get [him] out of there because [he]
`
`was frustrated and loud with Sgt. Eaton." [Filing No. 63 at 7.] No medical assessment was done.
`
`[Filing No. 63 at 7.]
`
`After the above events took place, Mr. Whitelow was placed on Strip Cell status3 and his
`
`personal property was confiscated. [Filing No. 47-4 at 2; Filing No. 63 at 7.] When Mr. Whitelow
`
`
`3 The parties do not define the term Strip Cell status, but as best the Court can tell, it means that
`officers removed almost everything from Mr. Whitelow's cell except a sleeping pad. [See Filing
`No. 47-18 at 00:00-00:38.]
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:
`927
`
`returned to his cell, he continued to cover his camera with his hand and a piece of tape. [Filing
`
`No. 47-18 at 06:00-26:45.] Mr. Whitelow was again removed from his cell to allow officers to
`
`search the cell. [Filing No. 47-18 at 26:58-42:57.] When Mr. Whitelow and his cell were searched,
`
`officers found two weapons—a GTL tablet battery pack tied into a sheet and a sharpened metal
`
`object. [Filing No. 47-4 at 3; Filing No. 47-18 at 31:18-31:25.] Officers removed the sleeping
`
`pad, and Mr. Whitelow was returned to his cell. [Filing No. 47-18 at 43:00-43:14.]
`
`Shortly thereafter, Mr. Whitelow smeared his feces over the window and camera. [Filing
`
`No. 47-18 at 56:20-1:15:23.] At no point during these events did Mr. Whitelow receive medical
`
`attention for his hand. [Filing No. 63 at 7.]
`
`D. May 5 Into May 6 – Mr. Whitelow Receives Conduct Reports
`
`From late May 5, 2020 into the early morning hours of May 6, 2020, Mr. Whitelow received
`
`four Conduct Reports for his behavior of covering his cell's window and camera with paper and a
`
`bed sheet, refusing to submit to restraints, possession of weapons, and using his bodily waste to
`
`cover his cell's camera and window. [Filing No. 47-2; Filing No. 47-4; Filing No. 63 at 8.]
`
`E. May 5 to May 10 – Mr. Whitelow Repeatedly Shows Defendants His Hand Injury
`
`From May 5, 2020 until May 10, 2020, Mr. Whitelow "kept showing [his] hand injuries to
`
`Sgt. Sgt. Cobb, Sgt. Sgt. Drada, Lt. Allen, Major Russell, Sgt. Eaton, Casework Manager Gonthier,
`
`and [Officer] Martin during their routine rounds at the SCU but all these staff members ignored
`
`[his] serious medical need." [Filing No. 63 at 8.]
`
`F. May 10 Through 12 – Mr. Whitelow Receives X-Rays and a Medical Brace
`
`On May 10, 2020, Mr. Whitelow submitted a Health Care Request Form, in which he noted
`
`that "[his] hand was smashed in the door by C.O.'s and appears to be broken. . . Male nurse on
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:
`928
`
`[T]hursday[4] said [I] was put in for x-ray but [N]urse Perez said I was not put in[.] Can [I] please
`
`be seen before damage is permanent." [Filing No. 57 at 3.] Health care staff responded to Mr.
`
`Whitelow's request, noting "x-rays ordered." [Filing No. 57 at 3.] Mr. Whitelow's left hand was
`
`subsequently x-rayed, and the x-rays revealed that the fifth metacarpal, the bone that connects the
`
`wrist to the pinkie finger, on Mr. Whitelow's left hand was fractured. [Filing No. 47-1 at 104-05;
`
`Filing No. 63 at 8.] He was "given an ulnar gutter splint ('medical brace')," pain relief medication,
`
`and "a frontward handcuffing permit by medical staff." [Filing No. 63 at 8.]
`
`G. This Lawsuit
`
`As noted above, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Mr.
`
`Whitelow's Eighth Amendment excessive force and conditions of confinement claims, First
`
`Amendment retaliation claim, and Fourteenth Amendment race-based equal protection claim.
`
`[Filing No. 67.] The Court took under advisement Mr. Whitelow's Eighth Amendment deliberate
`
`indifference to medical care claim against Sgt. Eaton, Major Russell, Casework Manager Gonthier,
`
`Officer Martin, Sgt. Sgt. Cobb, Sgt. Drada, Lt. Small, and Lt. Allen. [Filing No. 67 at 48-54.] The
`
`Court explained that the viability of Mr. Whitelow's claim depended on whether he produced
`
`sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find in his favor on the second of the two required
`
`elements of a deliberate indifference claim because it was clear that he produced sufficient
`
`evidence on the first element—an objective serious medical condition. [Filing No. 67 at 49.] As
`
`to the second required element—that the Defendants were deliberately, subjectively indifferent to
`
`his serious medical condition—the Court explained that:
`
`Neither party proffers much of an argument under th[e second] element [of a
`deliberate indifference claim]. [See Filing No. 48 at 27-28; Filing No. 62 at 14-20;
`Filing No. 64 at 14-15.] The Court's review of the record and case law, however,
`establishes that Defendants may well be entitled to summary judgment under this
`
`
`4 May 10, 2020 was a Sunday. The Thursday before May 10, 2020 was May 7, 2020.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
`929
`
`element, as explained below. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)(2) allows a
`court to grant summary judgment "on grounds not raised by a party" as long as the
`parties are provided notice and a reasonable time to respond to the Court's intention
`to do so. This is the parties' notice.
`
`The Court sets forth below how it sees the record and applicable caselaw on this
`element, and ORDERS Mr. Whitelow to FILE A RESPONSE no longer than 5
`pages by March 12, 2025, responding only to the Court's discussion below on the
`ground that it appears that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on
`the subjective deliberate indifference element of his claim. The failure to respond
`will result in the Court granting Defendants' Motion for Summary on this claim for
`the reasons explored below. See Olser Institute, Inc. v. Forde, 333 F.3d 832, 837
`(7th Cir. 2003) (holding that plaintiff's "squandered opportunity [to defend its
`claims was] not grounds for reversal"). The Court WILL ORDER further
`argument from Defendants IF IT DEEMS NECESSARY AFTER Mr. Whitelow's
`response.
`
`[Filing No. 67 at 51 (emphasis in original).]
`
`The Court then explained that it appeared on the record and through case law that Mr.
`
`Whitelow did not create a triable issue of fact regarding deliberate indifference. [Filing No. 67 at
`
`51-53.] Specifically, the Court first explained that the undisputed video evidence did not support
`
`an inference that Sgt. Eaton or any other Defendant knew that Mr. Whitelow had sustained a
`
`fracture upon his arrival at Wabash Valley on May 4, 2020 or that they were aware of the extent of
`
`his injury and pain, whenever it occurred. [Filing No. 67 at 51-52.] Secondly, the Court noted
`
`that there was undisputed evidence in the record that undermined his claim. The Court highlighted
`
`that Mr. Whitelow's claim that Defendants ignored his medical requests from May 5, 2020 until
`
`May 10, 2020 was directly contradicted by his acknowledgment that he was seen by a nurse on
`
`May 7, 2020. [Filing No. 67 at 51-52 (quoting Filing No. 57 at 2).] Further, the Court explained
`
`that it appeared that the Defendants' delay from May 5, 2020 until May 7, 2020 was reasonable
`
`and did not amount to deliberate indifference because Mr. Whitelow's behavior on those days
`
`prohibited safe treatment. [Filing No. 67 at 51-53.]
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
`930
`
`From this evidence, the Court reasoned that "it appeared that the delay was not a result of
`
`deliberate indifference but rather a necessary measure to preserve the penological interests of
`
`maintaining institutional security and discipline." [Filing No. 67 at 52 (citations omitted).]
`
`III.
`DISCUSSION
`
`Mr. Whitelow timely filed his Response to the Court's February 26, 2025 Order. [Filing
`
`No. 68.] The Court does not deem it necessary for further argument from Defendants and therefore
`
`proceeds to analyze Mr. Whitelow's remaining Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim.
`
`In his response to the Court's intention to grant summary judgment to Defendants based on
`
`the reasoning described above, Mr. Whitelow highlights the same facts he relies upon in his
`
`response in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and reasserts that he
`
`constantly requested medical attention from May 5, 2020 until May 10, 2020 and was completely
`
`ignored. [Filing No. 68.] Significantly, Mr. Whitelow does not address the evidence that he saw
`
`a nurse on May 7, 2020 and does not address or otherwise respond to the Court's analysis that his
`
`behavior from May 5, 2020 until May 7, 2020 prohibited safe medical treatment. [Filing No. 68;
`
`see Filing No. 67 at 53 (citation omitted).]
`
`The Eighth Amendment "requires prisons to provide adequate medical care to prisoners."
`
`Jackson v. Esser, 105 F.4th 948, 961 (7th Cir. 2024) (citing Johnson v. Dominguez, 5 F.4th 818,
`
`824 (7th Cir. 2021)). "Because depriving a prisoner of medical care serves no valid penological
`
`purpose, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary
`
`and wanton infliction of pain proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Brown v. Osmundson, 38
`
`F.4th 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2022) (quotations omitted, citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
`
`(1976)); Jackson, 105 F.4th at 961; Riley v. Waterman, 126 F.4th 1287, 1295 (7th Cir. 2025).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
`931
`
`"To prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, the plaintiff must prove (1) that he had an
`
`objectively serious medical condition (2) to which prison officials were 'deliberately, that is
`
`subjectively, indifferent.'" Id. (quoting Johnson, 5 F.4th at 824). The standard is not mere
`
`negligence—it requires proof that the defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of
`
`inmate health or safety or that they were aware of facts suggesting a substantial risk and
`
`consciously ignored it. Jackson, 105 F.4th at 961 (quotations and citations omitted). Id.; Stewart
`
`v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 14 F.4th 757, 763 (7th Cir. 2021) ("[D]eliberate indifference
`
`requires more than negligence or even gross negligence.") (quotations omitted). "Even 'objective
`
`recklessness—failing to act in the face of an unjustifiably high risk that is so obvious that it should
`
`be known—is insufficient to make out a claim.'" Jackson, 105 F.4th at 961 (quoting White v.
`
`Woods, 48 F.4th 853, 862 (7th Cir. 2022)).
`
`The first element is not at issue here, [Filing No. 67 at 50], so the Court focuses on the
`
`second—subjective deliberate indifference. To meet this element, a plaintiff must show that the
`
`defendant "actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm." Petties v. Carter, 836
`
`F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
`
`(1994)). "Officials can avoid liability by proving they were unaware even of an obvious risk to
`
`inmate health or safety." Petties, 836 F.3d at 728 (citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844). An
`
`"inexplicable delay in treatment which serves no penological interest" can support an inference of
`
`deliberate indifference. Petties, 836 F.3d at 730 (noting that "delays are common in the prison
`
`setting with limited resources, and whether the length of a delay is tolerable depends on the
`
`seriousness of the condition and the ease of providing treatment"). "Maintaining institutional
`
`security and preserving internal order and discipline are essential" penological interests. Bell v.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
`932
`
`Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 546-47 (1979) (citing Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 823 (1974), other
`
`citations omitted).
`
`Even construing the record liberally, a complete examination of the record undermines Mr.
`
`Whitelow's claim. First, the evidence confirms that on May 5, 2020, after requesting medical
`
`attention, Mr. Whitelow was escorted to the nurse's station. [Filing No. 63 at 17 (Mr. Whitelow's
`
`affidavit attesting to this fact).] Upon arrival, the evidence shows that he was "frustrated and loud
`
`with Sgt. Eaton" and the nurse "told the officers to get [him] out of there" and did not medically
`
`assess him. [Filing No. 63 at 17 (Mr. Whitelow's affidavit).] While delaying or denying medical
`
`care can amount to deliberate indifference, Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Petties, 836 F.3d at 730,
`
`in this instance, the refusal to assess Mr. Whitelow was due to his disruptive behavior—not a
`
`deliberate denial of care. The response served a legitimate penological purpose, maintaining order
`
`and discipline among inmates, Bell, 441 U.S. at 546-47, and did not violate the Eighth Amendment.
`
`Second, the evidence shows that Mr. Whitelow was seen by a nurse on May 7, 2020, which
`
`directly contradicts his claim that Defendants ignored his requests from May 5, 2020 until May
`
`10, 2020. [Filing No. 57 at 2.] Although two days is not a short amount of time for someone in
`
`pain, the facts of this case reveal that no reasonable juror could infer that the delay from May 5 to
`
`May 7, 2020 was "an inexplicable delay . . . which serve[d] no penological interest" such that it
`
`amounted to deliberate indifference. Petties, 836 F.3d at 730 (citations omitted); cf. Grieveson v.
`
`Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 767-68, 779-80 (7th Cir. 2008) (where there were no issues with prisoner's
`
`behavior or other reason to delay care, prison officers' delay of securing prisoner medical treatment
`
`for one-and-a-half days created a triable issue of fact as to the officers' states of mind). Crucially
`
`here, the undisputed evidence shows that from May 5 until at least May 6, 2020, Mr. Whitelow
`
`repeatedly covered his camera and cell window, including with feces; refused to comply with
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
`933
`
`orders; and was found with two weapons—a GTL tablet battery pack tied into a sheet and a
`
`sharpened metal object on his person. [Filing No. 47-4 at 3; Filing No. 47-18 at 31:18-31:25.]
`
`While Mr. Whitelow's hand fracture was a serious injury, and an x-ray is a rather simple diagnostic
`
`treatment tool, the ability to provide such treatment to Mr. Whitelow while he was indisputably
`
`hostile and noncompliant and found with weapons was nonexistent. In other words, no reasonable
`
`juror could find that the delay was a result of deliberate indifference instead of a necessary measure
`
`to preserve the penological interests of maintaining institutional security and discipline. Petties,
`
`836 F.3d at 730; Bell, 441 U.S. at 546-47.
`
`The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 46], on Mr.
`
`Whitelow's claim of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference in connection with receiving
`
`medical care.
`
`IV.
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment, [46], on Mr. Whitelow's claim of Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference in
`
`connection with receiving medical care, which the Court had previously taken under advisement.
`
`Because the Court previously granted summary judgment on all other claims, there are no further
`
`claims in this case.
`
`Final judgment shall issue accordingly.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Date: 3/25/2025
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00189-JMS-MJD Document 69 Filed 03/25/25 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
`934
`
`
`
`Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
`
`Distribution via United States Mail to:
`
`JB Whitelow, Jr.
`217729
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
`P.O. Box 1111
`CARLISLE, IN 47838
`
`
`
`15
`
`