|
JAMES A. LOCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSEPH SUARDINI, HARRY IRVINE, NANCY BLACKFORD, and MARYROSE GALLOWAY, Defendants-Appellees. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.
No. 05-00187—R. Allan Edgar, District Judge.
Argued: March 14, 2008
Decided and Filed: May 14, 2008
Before: MOORE, GILMAN, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. James A. Lockett, a prisoner at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in Michigan, is serving a sentence of 7 to 15 years for assault. During a misconduct hearing at the prison, Lockett became angry and used crude language to insult the hearing officer. He claims that two prison guards responded by forcibly removing him from the hearing room and assaulting him, thereby causing him to suffer minor cuts and lacerations. He further alleges that two prison nurses refused to treat his injuries.
Lockett subsequently filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the two prison guards and the two nurses employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), alleging that his First Amendment right of free speech was violated when the prison guards attacked him and the nurses denied him medical treatment in retaliation for insulting the hearing officer. He also claims that his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated by the prison guards, who allegedly used excessive force against him, and by the nurses, who purportedly denied him medical treatment for his injuries. The prison guards, on the other hand, contend that Lockett became belligerent and threatening upon leaving the hearing and that they used reasonable force to control him. Furthermore, Lockett’s medical records showed that one of the nurse-defendants was never contacted to see him following the incident. The other nurse, who saw him twice within 24 hours of the incident, attested that she did not observe any injuries, nor did he tell her of any.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court, which granted summary judgment in favor of all the defendants.