Hanks v. Hills

Background

The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Clayton James Hanks filed objections, and the district court conducted a de novo review, meaning it independently reviewed the challenged issues and the record.

Hanks alleged that Jason Hills ordered him to be placed on a restraint board as punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The court applied Eighth Circuit precedent holding that using a restraint board to preserve institutional order and security does not violate the Eighth Amendment unless the punishment or force is “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” The court agreed that the circumstances justified the restraint board and that Hills was entitled to qualified immunity, which can protect a government official from liability when the alleged conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Hanks also challenged the recommended dismissal of his claims against Nicholas Desotelle and Lawrence Amsden. The court stated that Hanks had not properly raised his allegation that they were involved in tightening the restraint-board straps before the magistrate judge. The court further held that, even if the allegation had been properly presented, Desotelle and Amsden would also have been entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged facts did not support a claim for cruel and unusual punishment. The court noted that the video showed Nurse Olivier checking the straps and did not show Hanks appearing distressed because of them.

Medical-care claim

Hanks argued that he should not have been required to provide medical evidence showing harm from the delay in treatment. The court rejected that argument. Because his claim alleged that defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by delaying medical care until the on-call doctor came the next day, he had to provide evidence of the delay’s harmful effect. The court found that he had not provided evidence of a detrimental effect caused by the delay.

Evidentiary objections

Hanks objected that the Report and Recommendation relied on inadmissible hearsay and improper lay and expert opinions. The court overruled the objection concerning lay and expert testimony because it was unsupported by specific examples. It also overruled the hearsay objection because Hanks did not show whether or how the challenged statements were relied upon. The court additionally stated that the statements appeared to fall within hearsay exceptions for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment or records of regularly conducted activity.

Disposition

The court overruled Hanks’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the action. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.