NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To cited accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals

For Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois Submitted December ^[*] Decided December

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No.

MARIO HOWARD LLOYD, Appeal United States District

Plaintiff Appellant Court Central District Illinois. v .

SCOTT MOATS TED WALL, James E. Shadid,

Defendants Appellees . Chief Judge .

O R D E R

Mario Lloyd, Federal Correctional Institution Pekin, Illinois, brought action Bivens Six Unknown Named Agents Federal Bureau Narcotics (1971), claiming doctor nurse violation Eighth Amendment. asserts Scott Ted misdiagnosed cause unreasonably ‐ delayed diagnostic testing, and inadequately treated him. entered summary judgment for defendants, and Lloyd appeals. We affirm the facts, taken here ‐ judgment record, in light most favorable to Lloyd. Estate Perry Wenzel While incarcerated, on October Lloyd participated in flag football game badly injured his right foot. Afterwards his was bruised he iced all night. attempted go sick call next day, but he was not seen until October 13. That day, Lloyd says, complained Wall in his foot; Wall told him discomfort was bunion. Lloyd said that his next visit was later in October. At time asked Wall schedule x ‐ ray for his foot, but Wall did do so, citing lack authority. Lloyd swears first asked Wall for x ray week October appointment then again in early November. Yet October visits recorded in (which, Wall attested, cannot be deleted), Wall stated in affidavit neither alleged visit took place. first visit documented on November diagnosed bunion. Wall advised Lloyd “to obtain wider size larger boot” did meet “criteria shoe.” A month later, saw Dr. Moats complained right, first, metatarsophalangeal joint (the joint connects big toe base foot). Dr. Moats diagnosed bunion took x ray, which revealed “old It was completed almost five months later, on August 28, and revealed “mild degenerative changes” abnormality of the midfoot.

Before MRI, Lloyd went to sick call on August and complained over ‐ counter pain medication easing his foot pain. countered he reviewed Lloyd’s many commissary purchases since October Lloyd had never purchased any relievers. The defendants submitted Lloyd’s commissary report affidavit from facilities trust fund supervisor, who confirmed Lloyd buy relievers from September to September (essentially, three years after injury). this, but receipts for relievers submitted were after September June sent to podiatrist. told her history on top his joint of his big toe. She noted decreased range both areas, remainder physical exam normal. The podiatrist reviewed Lloyd’s MRI results, were positive for osteoarthritis two his joints. She discussed diabetic osteoarthritis him recommended pair “Dr. Comfort” diabetic shoes. The prison’s utilization committee, however, denied request these shoes, determining that, based on osteoarthritis require specialized footwear, safely wear issued boots. (The committee appear to considered podiatrist “diabetic” shoes to alleviate symptoms diabetes.)

After exhausted his administrative remedies, suit June (before MRI his visit podiatrist). district screened complaint, U.S.C. § 1915A, allowed proceed on his claim failing investigate cause pain, waiting two months his foot, immediately ordering MRI. theory broke his fall, break cause continued suffer defendants’ inattention fracture. asked court three times recruited counsel denied each request.

During discovery served defendants requests produce records interrogatories. defendants turned more than pages answered most interrogatories few objections. two motions—one compel more one require them answer interrogatories fully; accused supplying “false information” about treatment. ‐ requests, noting that did “not state, with specificity, which Defendants [ sic ] objections believes be unsupported” that defendants adequately responded interrogatories. requested sanctions because, alleged, defendants’ attorneys tampered disc containing images x ‐ rays. denied this motion because found no evidence tampering been able information disc one point.

Eventually defendants cross ‐ motions granted defendants’ Lloyd’s. offered two reasons those rulings: first, that “the bunion arthritic pain” represent “a serious medical condition”; second, that were deliberately indifferent in treatment they “undertook extensive work ‐ up Plaintiff’s appropriate ‐ counter medication.” appeal argues factual preclude conclusion there no deliberate indifference law. Prison officials violate Eighth Amendment when they serious medical needs prisoners. Estelle Gamble, U.S. (1976). To establish deliberate indifference claim, must demonstrate condition is “objectively” serious officials acted “sufficiently culpable mind.” Farmer Brennan, 834–35 (1994). “[A] official cannot be found liable Eighth Amendment … unless official knows disregards excessive risk inmate health or safety.” Id. parties dispute whether objectively serious condition. we need reach because, even assuming it was, there is insufficient evidence which jury conclude acted deliberate indifference. maintains delay in treatment

fracture, including delay in ordering x rays MRI, unlawful. Even assuming fractured in (although it impossible tell occurred), nothing in record supports conclusion delay before MRI taken “inexplicable delay serves penological interest” it “exacerbated injury or unnecessarily prolonged pain.” Petties Carter (en banc). It up “place verifying record establish” it was, do so. Langston Peters Moreover, delay ordering tests must evaluated light entire determine if evinces deliberate indifference: “[T]he question X additional 16 3939 5 diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment is indicated is a classic example of a medical A medical decision not order X ray, like measures, not represent cruel unusual punishment.” Estelle , 429 107; see Pyles v. Fahim , 771 F.3d 403, 411 (7th Cir. 2014). record treatment received forecloses a finding deliberate

indifference. See Gutierrez v. Peters , 111 F.3d 1374 (7th Cir. (emphasizing “detailed account treatment received” rejecting deliberate indifference finding). Dr. Moats examined multiple times, took radiologist interpreted, referred outside podiatrist. outside specialist confirmed degeneration osteoarthritis caused pain. Neither defendant disregarded complaints made outrageous treatment (or non treatment) decisions; reflects a level continuous care is not consistent with a malicious mind. “is entitled measures” prevent serious risk harm, “is not entitled best possible.” Arnett v. Webster , F.3d (7th Cir. 2011). record, jury reasonably conclude adequate care. Finally, neither disagreement with doctors nor disagreement among doctors, establishes deliberate indifference case. Plainly disagrees course action Dr. Moats took treating pain, diagnosis its cause; says ongoing thinks should been given stronger medication special footwear. disagreement is irrelevant. is competent diagnose himself, has no choose own treatment. See Holloway Delaware Cty. Sheriff , F.3d (7th Cir. 2012). Further, fact Moats disagreed podiatrist’s recommendation special shoes is material here shoes prescribed, pending “prison medical department” approval. While genuine material fact may arise prison physician ignores specialist prescribed treatment, Gil Reed , F.3d (7th Cir. 2004), prison physician’s decision reject another doctor’s treatment favor own “does amount deliberate indifference where recommendations made qualified professionals” doctor’s decision is reason. Shields Illinois Dep ʹ t Corr. , F.3d 2014); Perez Fenoglio As long used judgment—and there not—he free devise own plan. Holloway 16 3939 6 also argues appeal district judge abused discretion denying Lloyd’s motions recruitment counsel, we disagree. When an indigent plaintiff requests recruitment counsel district judge must ask whether plaintiff made reasonable attempts independently obtain counsel (or prevented from doing so), appears competent litigate case. See Pruitt Mote , F.3d (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We will reverse only if demonstrates prejudice. See id . at 659. district judge Lloyd’s first premature, second because demonstrated efforts retain counsel, third competent litigate case himself. In denying third motion, noted “had strenuously prosecuted case, has variety motions,

including motions compel.” extensive judgment filings also demonstrated could litigate case himself. See Pruitt , F.3d at 654–56. This decision well bounds judge’s discretion. believes suffered prejudice because, without attorney, obtain expert witness, has persuaded us expert would have difference. already benefit podiatrist’s her special shoes. Further, useful expert would have opine strayed so far standard actions surpassed malpractice instead approached intentional wrongdoing, see Arnett , F.3d nature extent case would make finding such expert unlikely, best. says district erred denying discovery motions.

“[t]rial courts retain broad discretion limit manage discovery Rule civil rules.” Geiger Aetna Life Ins. Co. , F.3d (7th Cir. (internal alterations omitted). They have broad discretion impose discovery sanctions, may impose them “where party displays willfulness, bad faith, fault.” Scott Chuhak & Tecson, P.C. 2013). In district judge’s view, complied requests they valid objections, they improperly object withhold anything. further concluded assertions acted bad faith, provided “false information,” tampered discs containing baseless. We too censurable conduct, we will second ‐ guess district judge’s ruling without good reason . Chatham Davis AFFIRM judgment court.

[*] agreed decide case without oral argument briefs adequately present facts legal arguments, oral argument would significantly aid court. F ED . R. PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).

midfoot” had healed itself. Dr. notes reported had hurt portion “playing football” but area “no longer bothersome.” (Lloyd said this, but difference account outcome appeal.) Dr. Moats recommend any fracture, concerned about “moth eaten” appearance area immediately below base big toe, suspected “inflammatory process.” Moats prescribed aspirin ordered blood tests, reveal anything unusual. A radiologist reviewed x ray reached same conclusions: bony trauma suffered healed, source bunion “degeneration.” several more complaints Wall, doctor ordered another March radiologist reviewed x ray too, interpreting results be “[n]egative except moderate degenerative joint disease.” told about these results documented “unwilling accept findings … wants evaluated again.” following week, after continued complain another doctor ordered MRI.