*1 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION cited accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals

For Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois

Submitted June ^[*]

Decided

Before MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge No. ‐

ROGER GRAHAM, Appeal United States District

Plaintiff Appellant Court Southern District Indianapolis Division.

v . 1:19 cv JRS TAB DUSHAN ZATECKY, et al., James R. Sweeny II,

Defendants Appellees. Judge .

O R D E R Roger Indiana inmate, Pendleton Correctional Facility entered correct problem. has now officials under U.S.C. § accusing them under correctly the established the treatment Graham was affirm.

Graham’s occurred in August 2017. working in Pendleton’s furniture woodshop machine malfunctioned, sending of wood deep into right hand. Graham went the infirmary where Paul Talbot immediately ordered an outside hospital provide emergency treatment. At hospital, surgeon removed wood Graham’s hand, sutured wound closed, prescribed Graham an antibiotic, sent him back Pendleton.

Graham later had second Two months after first Graham began complaining of intermittent hand pain. Talbot and, suspecting wood might still lodged in hand, ordered X ray. The X showed foreign objects, however, did refer any outside providers. That January, Talbot again saw who still complained of hand pain. At visit, feel foreign body in Graham’s ordered ultrasound. The ultrasound revealed splinters of wood, leading consult with surgeon. That surgeon recommended, later received, surgery remove wood splinters. The surgery occurred in May about eight months When saw shortly insisted remained noted full use hand: performed all

activities daily living. use surgeon (who saw day before) noted problems, ordered intervention. repeated these complaints few months later nurse practitioner, submitted request consultation After discussing matter with regional medical director LLC, prison’s medical provider, prison’s medical staff determined “conservative onsite treatment” advisable.

Medical revisited issue 2019. regional director concluded swelling sign infection, additional X rays determine needed. rays revealed splinter on inside fourth finger. providers discussed surgical conservative remained appropriate. They conclusion location splinter, function his and need for type II diabetic, to lose weight and to control his blood sugar levels better before third, elective next Talbot, Wexford, and for Eighth

Amendment rights by failing to third Near discovery, asked for denied that finding that wrote well and organized and arguments coherently, so could himself. Later, summary judgment for defendants. contests that decision as Wexford Talbot, say no other that exercised professional judgment third surgery, no reasonable jury could conclude that violated Eighth Amendment. And, added, identified policy or custom Wexford’s that led such violation. argues summary for improper. accepts responded through but contends doctor violated recommend To avoid judgment, needed submit evidence intentionally or recklessly disregarded need for Petties Carter does not

permit such finding. contrary, against another three undisputed factors: first, infection; second, placed single one finger, be addressed ‐ surgically; third, other professionals elective risky weight diabetes. diabetes factor deciding perform two surgeries. those were elective, evidence suggests recent surgeries, benefit third, elective procedure outweighed risk diabetes. On record, then, jury Talbot’s decision far afield professional also follow it. Pyles Fahim remaining cl aim Wexford fails. reveals cannot held liable deficient policy or practice. 412; Monell Dep’t Soc. Servs. U.S. (1978). argues, unpersuasively, district court abused its discretion when it Pruitt Mote F.3d (7th Cir. In weighed nature competency litigate found that, light writing organizational skills, proceed unassisted. 654–55. he help preparing filings, evaluating pro se plaintiff’s ability case, should focus litigant’s personal skills rather than “on abilities jailhouse lawyer been preparing filings him.” Henderson Ghosh 2014). But deposition, testified help typing only, substance. Thus, applied appropriate analysis. argued lawyer help expert examine entitled wait until near discovery raise requests if granted, require extension discovery. Stevo Frasor

AFFIRMED

[*] We have agreed decide without oral argument briefs present arguments, oral argument significantly aid court. F ED R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).