United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1220 RICHARD RODGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WILLIAM RANKIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 4:20-cv-04121-SLD-JEH — Sara Darrow, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED NOVEMBER 28, 2023 — DECIDED APRIL 23, 2024 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Richard Rodgers entered the East Moline Correctional Center with a history of scoliosis and back pain that had been treated surgi- cally by implanting steel rods in his back. His back pain per- sisted during his time in prison. At some point during his im- prisonment, the rods in his back broke. The broken hardware went undetected for more than a year after two radiologists 2 No. 23-1220 misread his x-rays. Eventually, the jail’s primary care physi- cian, defendant-appellee Dr. William Rankin, discovered the broken hardware when he double-checked Rodgers’ x-ray images. Dr. Rankin arranged for Rodgers to receive corrective surgery. After that surgery, Rodgers needed another after de- veloping an infection. After this ordeal, Rodgers sued the radiologists and Dr. Rankin, as well as other defendants not at issue in this appeal. The district court screened Rodgers’ complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed his Eighth Amendment claims against the radiologists because Rodgers did not state a viable constitutional claim against them. The court allowed Rodgers to proceed against Dr. Rankin but eventually granted summary judgment for him. The court found that Rodgers had not come forward with evidence that would allow a rea- sonable jury to find that Dr. Rankin had violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference toward Rodgers’ serious medical condition. Rodgers has appealed. We affirm the judgment of the district court. Regarding the radiologists, the Eighth Amendment requires allegations of more than mere negligence to state a viable claim. Rodgers alleged no more than negligence by the radiologists. As for Dr. Rankin, we agree with the district court that the evidence would not support a reasonable finding that Dr. Rankin acted with deliberate indifference to Rodgers’ serious medical con- dition. In fact, Dr. Rankin deserves the credit for having found the radiologists’ errors in reading the x-rays and putting Rodgers on the path to the corrective surgery he needed. No. 23-1220 3 I. Factual and Procedural Background Richard Rodgers endured scoliosis for years before enter- ing the East Moline Correctional Center. Sometime before his imprisonment, he had metal rods known as Harrington rods implanted in his back to straighten his spine. Twice before his imprisonment, those rods had broken, requiring further sur- gery. Rodgers’ back problems persisted at the prison. In Decem- ber 2016, Rodgers met with Dr. William Rankin, the physician for the prison, to discuss his back pain and other ailments. Rodgers told Dr. Rankin that he had Harrington rods in his back and that they had broken previously. Dr. Rankin had never before treated a patient with Harrington rods. After noting that Rodgers had some tenderness along his spine, Dr. Rankin gave him ibuprofen and Robaxin, a muscle relaxer. Dr. Rankin also ordered a low-bunk permit and an extra blan- ket to reduce stress on Rodgers’ back. Rodgers’ medical records show that he next complained of back pain in May 2018. Rodgers and Dr. Rankin met again for an appointment that month