Robin Smith v. Jacqueline Lashbrook, 671 F. App'x 381

Background

Plaintiff Robin Smith, an Illinois inmate at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming defendants were deliberately indifferent to his digestive ailments (constipation, bloating, gas) he attributed to a high-soy prison diet.
District court allowed suit to proceed against the warden, healthcare administrator, a doctor, and the dietary manager; defendants moved for summary judgment.
Medical records showed X-ray/CT findings of moderate to significant stool throughout the colon but no obstruction; bloodwork showed H. pylori antibodies and elevated amylase; Smith received antibiotics, an acid reducer, laxatives, antacids, and a stool softener; a soy-allergy test was done and rectal exam was refused by Smith.
Defendants argued there was no evidence linking soy to Smith’s symptoms, that Smith had received appropriate and ongoing medical care, and that Smith refused certain exams; the doctor submitted an affidavit supporting those points.
Smith sought multiple continuances to oppose summary judgment claiming limited access to legal materials; a magistrate judge granted four but denied a fifth; Smith did not seek district-court review of that denial.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference given the investigation and ongoing treatment; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of an additional continuance to oppose summary judgment was improper	Smith said he needed more time due to transfers, segregation, and lack of access to legal materials	Defendants relied on magistrate/district court rulings that Smith had adequate time and had already filed key records	Waived by failure to seek district-court review; in any case no prejudice shown, so denial does not require reversal
Whether Smith’s speculation that soy caused his condition creates a triable issue	Smith argued his diet (high soy) caused ongoing digestive problems	Defendants: no evidence linking soy; medical records and doctors’ affidavits show investigation/treatment and alternative causes	Speculation and self-diagnosis insufficient; need competent evidence, so summary judgment proper
Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs (Eighth Amendment)	Smith argued defendants ignored or failed to treat his painful digestive condition adequately	Defendants showed repeated assessment, tests, treatments, and medical judgment decisions; dietary manager deferred to medical staff	No reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference given continuous evaluation and treatment; judgment for defendants affirmed
Whether prisoner is entitled to the specific remedy he requests (soy-free diet)	Smith sought a soy-free diet as relief for his symptoms	Defendants: prisoners cannot dictate specific care; treatment may follow accepted medical judgment	Prisoners are not entitled to choose their treatment; absence of requested diet does not itself show deliberate indifference

Key Cases Cited

Hunt v. DaVita, Inc., 680 F.3d 775 (7th Cir.) (duty to seek review of magistrate rulings to preserve objection)
United States v. Hernandez-Rivas, 348 F.3d 595 (7th Cir.) (same waiver principle)
Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 663 F.3d 887 (7th Cir.) (prejudice requirement for continuance denial reversal)
Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., 772 F.3d 457 (7th Cir.) (limits on self-diagnosis and lay medical opinion to defeat summary judgment)
Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir.) (standard for viewing record on summary judgment in prison cases)
McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.) (ongoing treatment undermines deliberate-indifference claim)
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir.) (prisoners are not entitled to dictate specific medical care)
Holloway v. Delaware Cnty. Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir.) (deliberate indifference requires departure from accepted medical judgment)