Prison medical staff who treated a broken wrist continuously did not violate inmate rights.
Lawrence R Stinnett v. Amanda Phipps, et al.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Prison medical staff who treated a broken wrist continuously did not violate inmate rights.
Why it matters
In Stinnett v. Phipps et al., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued a Report and Recommendation in favor of the Wellpath Defendants, recommending that their motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff Lawrence Stinnett, a prisoner, claimed that prison medical staff violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to a broken wrist he suffered during an inmate altercation. The court found that uncontested medical records showed the defendants provided Stinnett with continual care, which is fatal to his constitutional claims.
Who it affects
This ruling primarily affects incarcerated individuals who bring civil rights claims over prison medical care, as well as private prison healthcare companies like Wellpath LLC and their employees. It reinforces that documented, ongoing medical treatment can defeat claims of deliberate indifference even when a prisoner believes the care was insufficient.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Aug 10, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Aug 10, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Aug 10, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
The central question in this case was whether prison medical staff and their employer, Wellpath LLC, acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, specifically a wrist fracture, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Deliberate indifference is the legal standard for prisoner medical care claims, requiring more than negligence or a disagreement over treatment choices. Lawrence Stinnett was struck in the wrist during a fight with another inmate on March 5, 2024, at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex. He was promptly seen by nursing staff, who applied an ace wrap and ordered a routine x-ray. Over the following days, he was seen multiple times by medical providers, prescribed Ibuprofen for pain, and monitored during rounds. When x-ray results on March 15 confirmed a radial and ulnar fracture, a splint was applied and an orthopedics consultation was ordered. On March 25, Stinnett was taken off-campus to St. Claire Regional Medical Center, where specialists noted the fracture and recommended a referral to a hand specialist as soon as possible, noting the injury was already 14 days old. Upon return to the facility, providers noted his condition and arranged for a specialist appointment. Throughout this period, medical staff renewed his pain medication and continued to monitor him. The court concluded that the medical records, which were not contested by Stinnett, demonstrated continuous care and attention to his injury. Because ongoing treatment was provided, the court found Stinnett could not establish the elements necessary to prove a constitutional violation. The court addressed Stinnett's argument that he should have been sent to an emergency room immediately, noting that health administrators explained the criteria for emergency referral under nursing standing orders. The court's recommendation is that summary judgment be granted in favor of all Wellpath Defendants. The source text is a Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge, meaning it is not a final order. It is subject to review by the presiding district judge before becoming binding. No dissent is reflected in the source text.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION ASHLAND LAWRENCE R. STINNETT, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 0:25-CV-00044-DLB-MAS ) AMANDA PHIPPS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This prisoner civil rights action is before the Court on referral from Chief Judge Bunning [DE 23] for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive motions, including the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Defendants Amanda Phipps, Tonya Ward, Karrington Gullett, and Wellpath, LLC (hereinafter “Wellpath Defendants”) initially filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 34]. Plaintiff Lawrence Stinnett (“Stinnett”) filed a Response [DE 36], and Wellpath Defendants replied [DE 37]. Stinnett then filed a sur-reply without seeking permission to do so. [DE 38]. In general, a sur-reply may only be filed with leave of the Court. However, given Stinnett’s pro se status, the Court considers his sur-reply in the following analysis. Thus, this matter is now ripe for review. For the reasons thoroughly discussed below, this Court recommends that the Wellpath Defendants’ Motion [DE 34] be granted. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Stinnett alleges that the Wellpath Defendants in this action violated his Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to a broken wrist Stinnett suffered during his incarceration. Because the uncontested medical records demonstrate that Defendants provided Stinnett with continual care for his injury, Stinnett cannot establish the necessary elements of a constitutional violation. Stinnett was initially incarcerated at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“EKCC”). On March 5, 2024, Stinnett was struck in the wrist during an altercation with another inmate. [DE 34-2, Page ID# 372]. Stinnett presented to medical staff at EKCC, where Defendant Tonya Ward, RN, screened him for injuries. [Id.]. Ward noted that Stinnett presented with bilateral knee abrasions and an abrasion to the left wrist, along with swelling and a palpable radial pulse in the right wrist. [Id.]. Ward applied an ace wrap to the right wrist and ordered a routine x-ray of Stinnett’s injured wrist. [Id.; Id. at Page ID# 374]. In his Complaint, Stinnett alleges that he called his father, Dr. Robert Stinnett, about his condition on March 6, 2024. [DE 1, Page ID# 4]. Stinnett further alleges that his father then contacted EKCC Warden, James Green, who contacted Defendant Health Services Administrator Amanda Phipps to inquire as to why Stinnett was not sent to the emergency room for his injury. [Id. at Page ID# 5]. This inquiry caused Phipps to personally inform Stinnett that “policy only permits inmates with ‘Compound Fractures’ or bones pertruding [sic] through the skin to be sent to the E.R.” [Id.]. Stinnett’s attached exhibit supporting this allegation,1 however, is Phipps’s response to a grievance filed by Stinnett, in which she stated: After he was injured in an altercation, I did speak to Mr. Stinnett. I am not sure of the date. Mr. Stinnett inquired about why he was not sent to the emergency department, and I advised him that a provider must order for a patient to be sent to the emergency department, either based on their assessment or nursing assessment. Nursing standing orders indicate to refer to the provider for emergent assessment if the patient experiences: impaired circulation, open fracture, dislocations, shock or hemorrhage, suspected neck, skull, or spinal injury. [DE 1-1, Page ID# 47]. Stinnett was again treated by a Wellpath medical provider on March 6, 2024. [DE 34-2, Page ID# 383]. The provider noted that Stinnett presented with a possible wrist fracture and was enduring “lots of pain.” [Id.]. To combat the pain, Stinnett was prescribed a twice daily dose of 600 milligrams of Ibuprofen, set to expire on March 13. [Id. at Page ID# 385]. Stinnett was seen again by providers on March 7, 2024, with no complaints noted. [Id. at Page ID# 392]. On March 11, 2024, an x-ray of Stinnett’s right wrist was performed. [DE 1, Page ID# 11; DE 1-1, Page ID# 47]. Providers completed rounds on March 12 and 14, again receiving no noted complaints from Stinnett. [DE 34-2, Page ID# 397, 408]. On March 15, 2024, Defendant Karrington Gullett, APRN, received the results of the x- ray, which showed a radial/ulnar fracture. [Id. at Page ID# 418]. Gullett applied an 1 The text of Stinnett’s Complaint indicates that an affidavit would be submitted to support the contention that his father contacted Warden Green; however, no such affidavit exists in the record. [DE 1, Page ID# 5]. ulnar gutter splint to Stinnett’s right arm and ordered an orthopedics consult for the next available date, pending approval. [Id.; DE 1-1, Page ID# 26]. Stinnett complained of pain and requested Ibuprofen on March 18, 2024. [DE 34-2, Page ID# 433]. His Ibuprofen prescription was renewed with an expiration date of April 16, 2024. [Id. at Page ID# 436]. During rounds on March 19 and March 20, no specific complaints were noted. [Id. at Page ID# 450, 465]. On March 25, 2024, Stinnett attended an off-campus orthopedics consultation at St. Claire Regional Medical Center. [DE 1-1, Page ID# 38]. Medical staff noted that x-ray imaging demonstrated a distal radius fracture and recommended referral as soon as possible to a hand specialist “for further evaluation and likely surgery.” [Id. at Page ID# 27]. Further, the treatment plan notes state, “due to the fact the patient is already 14 days out from the injury, recommend this referral as soon as possible; this was communicated to the prison.” [Id. at Page ID# 29]. Upon Stinnett’s return to EKCC, medical providers noted that a splint was applied to his right hand and arm, up to his elbow. [DE 34-2, Page ID# 475]. Stinnett told Wellpath medical providers that his “wrist [was] shattered” and he would “have to go see a specialist at UK to fix it.” [Id.]. He rated his pain as a nine out of ten and providers noted that Stinnett’s vital signs were stable, he was able to move his right fingers, and his skin color was pink with good capillary refill. [Id.]. The provider on duty contacted Gullett regarding Stinnett’s return and noted that an appointment with a specialist would be scheduled. [Id.]. A knock-off order was placed on March 26 due to Stinnett’s wrist injury
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.