Eric D. Turner v. Secretary, DOC ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-13952
January 4, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-01071-CV-T-26-TGW
ERIC DUANE TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY, DOC,
WESFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
CHO ROBERT BRIGGS,
NP G. OQUNSOLA,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 4, 2005)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Eric D. Turner appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint as
frivolous. Turner argues the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his
complaint that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs, but Turner’s complaint reveals that he had received medical treatment from
prison officials. We affirm.
While incarcerated in Florida prisons, Turner sought medical treatment for
his alleged “severe migraines, abdominal pain, burning sensation and rash on the
tip of his penis, [and] pain throughout his eyes, neck, shoulders, and back.” Turner
was seen by at least two different doctors, and several blood and urine tests were
conducted. The tests results were negative for infectious disease, and the doctors
prescribed Tylenol for the pain. Although no infection was found, one doctor
prescribed Bactrim, an antibiotic. The doctors also referred Turner to a
psychologist for an evaluation.
On June 8, 2005, Turner filed pro se a complaint that alleged the doctors and
prison officials acted with deliberate indifference in the diagnosis and treatment of
his condition in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment right against
cruel and unusual punishment. Turner moved to file in forma pauperis. The
district court denied Turner’s motion and dismissed his complaint as frivolous
under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
2
This Court reviews the dismissal of a complaint as frivolous under PLRA for
abuse of discretion. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1348-49 (11th Cir. 2001). “A
claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact.” Id. at 1349.
To state a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, a prisoner must
prove four elements: “an objectively serious need, an objectively insufficient
response to that need, subjective awareness of facts signaling the need, and an
actual inference of required action from those facts.” Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d
1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Turner’s complaint
to be frivolous. Turner’s complaint amounts to no more than a disagreement with
the medical treatment prison officials provided him. See Waldrop v. Evans, 871
F.2d 1030, 1033 (11th Cir. 1989). Florida officials conducted numerous tests and
prescribed medications to treat Turner’s complaints. Because Turner’s complaint
is “without arguable merit in law or fact,” we
AFFIRM.
3