Graham v. Koenig
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:23-cv-00263
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 20
In Graham v. Koenig, Judge Provinzino dismissed with prejudice the civil rights lawsuit brought by incarcerated plaintiff Alonzo J. Graham against prison dentist Dr. James Koenig and nursing supervisor Kathy Reid, ruling that Graham failed to show any genuine factual dispute sufficient to overcome the defendants' motion for summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims.
Incarcerated individuals who sue prison medical or dental staff for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, particularly those proceeding without a lawyer, who need to understand that conclusory allegations in a verified complaint are insufficient at summary judgment without specific supporting record evidence, and that they cannot block defendants' access to medical records that are directly relevant to claims they themselves have brought.
What happened
In Graham v. Koenig (Case No. 23-cv-263), Alonzo J. Graham, a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights, sued prison dentist Dr. James Koenig and RN Supervisor Kathy Reid under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows people to sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. Graham alleged that in 2017, Dr. Koenig improperly extracted his tooth without offering alternatives, failed to stitch the extraction site causing a painful dry socket, and later cleaned his teeth using a dental drill without numbing agents, stripping enamel and exposing tooth roots. He also claimed Reid failed to respond adequately to his grievances about this treatment, and that both defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
The defendants moved for summary judgment — a procedure where a court decides a case without a trial when there are no genuine disputes over the important facts. A magistrate judge (a subordinate judicial officer who assists the district court) reviewed the motions and issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that summary judgment should be granted for the defendants, that Graham's motion to exclude the defendants' expert dental witness should be denied, and that the case should be dismissed. Graham objected, arguing that his verified complaint (a complaint signed under penalty of perjury) should have been treated as sworn evidence, that the magistrate judge improperly favored the defendants' version of events, and that the defendants' dental expert was biased and had improperly accessed his medical records. Graham also sought to introduce two new declarations not previously submitted to the magistrate judge.
Judge Provinzino overruled all of Graham's objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court declined to consider the two new declarations because evidence not presented to the magistrate judge cannot be introduced at the objection stage. On the merits, the court found that while a verified complaint can function like sworn testimony, Graham's allegations were too conclusory to create a genuine factual dispute, especially because the defendants submitted contemporaneous dental records and expert testimony contradicting his account — for example, showing that Dr. Koenig used an ultrasonic scaler, not a drill, to clean Graham's teeth. The court also found no basis to exclude the defendants' dental expert, rejecting claims of bias and ruling that Graham could not block access to dental records that were directly relevant to claims he himself had raised. Graham's complaint about unanswered discovery requests was rejected as raised too late, well past the court's discovery deadline. The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning Graham cannot refile these claims.
The detailed version
This case arises from dental treatment that Alonzo J. Graham, a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights (MCF-OPH), received in 2017. Graham filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal civil rights statute permitting suits against government actors for constitutional violations — alleging that Dr. James Koenig, a prison dentist, and Kathy Reid, an RN Supervisor, violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by being deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Graham's core factual allegations were: (1) In February 2017, Dr. Koenig told him tooth extraction was the 'only choice' for an infected tooth, performed the extraction without stitching the site, and then refused Graham's requests for pain medication and antibiotics, leading to a painful dry socket; (2) In March 2017, Dr. Koenig cleaned Graham's teeth using a 'drill' without numbing agents, causing him to feel pain, stripping tooth enamel, exposing tooth roots, and dislodging a filling, ultimately requiring additional extractions and causing ongoing pain; and (3) Reid took excessive time or failed entirely to respond to Graham's grievances about this treatment.
United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on July 29, 2025, recommending that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, Graham's motion to exclude the defendants' dental expert (his first motion in limine) be denied, and the case be dismissed with prejudice. After some procedural extensions to ensure Graham received and could respond to the R&R, Graham filed timely objections and a second motion in limine seeking to introduce two new declarations from non-parties.
Judge Provinzino reviewed the R&R de novo (independently, from scratch) as to the portions Graham specifically objected to, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), and liberally construed Graham's filings given his pro se (self-represented) status.
New Declarations (Second Motion in Limine)
The court denied Graham's attempt to introduce two new declarations, because those declarations were not part of the record before Magistrate Judge Micko. The court cited the principle that a party objecting to an R&R may not introduce new evidence or raise new arguments not previously presented to the magistrate judge, relying on Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 470 (8th Cir. 2000), and local rules.
Objection 1 — Verified Complaint as Affidavit
Graham argued that Magistrate Judge Micko failed to treat his verified amended complaint as sworn affidavit evidence for summary judgment purposes. The court acknowledged that a verified complaint can function as an affidavit under Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Berry v. Doss, 900 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2018)), but found the objection meritless for two reasons. First, the R&R showed that Magistrate Judge Micko did in fact consider the amended complaint. Second, even treating the complaint as an affidavit, Graham's allegations were largely conclusory — unsupported by specific record citations — and a 'conclusory, self-serving affidavit will not defeat an otherwise meritorious summary judgment motion,' citing Smith v. Golden China of Red Wing, Inc., 987 F.3d 1205, 1209 (8th Cir. 2021). The court also noted that Graham, like all litigants including pro se parties, bears the obligation to cite specific record materials to support his position at summary judgment, and that courts are not required to search the entire record on a party's behalf, citing Glover v. Bostrom, 31 F.4th 601, 605 (8th Cir. 2022).
Objection 2 — Improper Inference Drawing
Graham argued that Magistrate Judge Micko drew inferences in the defendants' favor rather than his own. The court found this objection unpersuasive, explaining that the duty to view facts in the nonmoving party's favor applies only where there is a genuine factual dispute — citing Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). Here, Defendants submitted Dr. Koenig's contemporaneous dental notes from March 2017 showing use of an 'ultrasonic scaler,' and a defense expert's explanation of how that device works with water spray — which actually aligned with Graham's own description of water spraying during the procedure. The court applied Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007), holding that when one party's account is blatantly contradicted by the record, the court need not accept it. The court also rejected Graham's unsupported allegation that medical records were 'illegally altered,' noting Graham himself acknowledged in his summary judgment response that he had not yet proven this. The court briefly addressed and rejected a bias claim based on Magistrate Judge Micko's use of the phrase 'nearly a decade ago,' finding it accurate and not indicative of partiality.
Objection 3 — Expert Witness Exclusion (First Motion in Limine)
Graham sought to exclude the declarations of Dr. Brian Kajewski, a licensed dentist who had been Chief Dentist for the Minnesota Department of Corrections since 2024, on grounds of (a) bias due to a purported professional relationship with Dr. Koenig, (b) bad faith in submission, and (c) improper access to Graham's dental records. The court rejected all three grounds. On bias: Dr. Kajewski stated he did not know Dr. Koenig and had never met him; Dr. Koenig had retired in 2021 before Dr. Kajewski became Chief Dentist. On bad faith: Graham had not raised this argument before Magistrate Judge Micko, so it was barred as a new argument at the objection stage under Roberts v. Apfel. On improper records access: The court traced the authorization history in detail — Graham authorized access to his dental records on June 17, 2024; attempted to revoke it; then issued a new authorization on July 31, 2024 (in response to a court order on a motion to compel), which superseded any prior revocation. Dr. Kajewski's first declaration was dated October 19, 2024, after the July 2024 authorization. Graham's January 2025 attempt to terminate access came after the records had already been lawfully produced. The court also held that by placing his dental health directly at issue through his lawsuit, Graham could not unilaterally block defendants' access to dental records relevant to those claims, citing Clark v. Roy and Allen v. Reid (D. Minn. cases). The court further noted that Magistrate Judge Micko had also recommended denial of the first motion in limine as moot, because dismissal was warranted regardless of whether Dr. Kajewski's declarations were considered, and the district court agreed.
Objection 4 — Discovery Failures
Graham's final objection — that defendants largely ignored his discovery requests — was overruled as untimely and improperly raised. Fact discovery closed August 20, 2024, and the deadline to file a motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) was September 20, 2024. Graham never filed such a motion.
Disposition
Judge Provinzino granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied both of Graham's motions in limine, overruled all objections, adopted the R&R in full, and dismissed the case with prejudice — meaning Graham cannot refile these same claims. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.