Watkins v. Cape May County Correctional Center ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-23-2007
Watkins v. Cape May Cty Corr
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4540
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Watkins v. Cape May Cty Corr" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 706.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/706
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-4540
________________
FRED L. WATKINS, JR.,
Appellant
v.
CAPE MAY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER (Medical Dept.); PRISON
HEALTH SERVICES; COUNTY OF CAPE MAY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-04967)
District Judge: Honorable Noel L. Hillman
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 20, 2007
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: July 23, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Fred L. Watkins, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting the motion for summary
judgment filed by the defendants named in Watkins’ civil rights complaint. We will
affirm.
From November 2003 to December 2004, Watkins was incarcerated at the Cape
May County Correctional Center as a pretrial detainee. Shortly after his arrival at the
correctional facility, Watkins began experiencing arm, leg, and back pain, which he
believed was symptomatic of a previously diagnosed nerve disorder. Watkins submitted a
medical request slip and received an appointment with Allan B. Martin, M.D., a physician
employed at the facility. Dr. Martin ordered x-rays of the affected areas, prescribed
medication, and referred Watkins to neurologist Manish K. Singh, M.D. Dr. Singh
examined Watkins in January 2004, and recommended that an M.R.I. and several other
diagnostic tests be performed. Dr. Singh also prescribed three medications, including
Bextra, a pain reliever. Dr. Martin examined Watkins on two occasions in the weeks
following his visit with the neurologist. Based on these examinations, Dr. Martin decided
not to order an M.R.I. and not to refill Watkins’ depleted supply of Bextra, even though
the neurologist’s prescription authorized refills of that medication. Watkins continued to
take the other medications prescribed by Dr. Singh as needed, but he claims that his
symptoms did not improve.
In October 2004, Watkins filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Cape May County Correctional Center and Prison Health Services, Inc., the entity
responsible for providing medical care for the inmates at the jail. Watkins claims that the
defendants violated his constitutional rights by not providing medical treatment in
accordance with Dr. Singh’s recommendations. The District Court granted the
2
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Watkins now appeals.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a District Court’s
grant of summary judgment is plenary. Hamilton v. Leavy, 117 F.3d 742, 746 (3d Cir.
1997). Summary judgment is appropriate where the evidence submitted by the parties
demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Saldana v. Kmart Corp.,
260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001). In opposing a summary judgment motion, a non-
moving party may not rely solely upon the allegations raised in the pleadings, but must
set forth specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for
trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); Tillman v. Lebanon County Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410, 420
n.10 (3d Cir. 2000).
A claim by a pretrial detainee challenging the conditions of confinement in a state
detention facility is analyzed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Hubbard v. Taylor, 399 F.3d 150, 157-58 (3d Cir. 2005). Where the challenge
concerns medical care received at the facility, the applicable standard is the one set forth in
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). See Natale v. Camden County Corr. Facility, 318
F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). Under this standard, “plaintiffs must demonstrate (1) that
the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their medical needs and (2) that those needs
were serious.” Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle, 429
U.S. at 106). To show deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must do more than simply allege
medical malpractice or express disagreement regarding the treatment provided. See
3
Monmouth County Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987). A
physician does not act with deliberate indifference merely by disagreeing with the
professional judgment of another doctor if the challenged treatment is one of several
acceptable ways of addressing the patient’s medical needs. See White v. Napoleon, 897
F.2d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 1990).
After concluding that Watkins had sufficiently shown that he suffered from a
serious medical need at the time that he sought treatment, the District Court proceeded to
analyze his claim that medical personnel at the correctional facility were deliberately
indifferent to that need. We agree with the District Court that Watkins has failed to
establish that a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether medical personnel acted with
deliberate indifference in not following the recommendations of the neurologist, Dr.
Singh. Dr. Martin, who is not a party to this action, submitted an affidavit stating that he
decided not to order an M.R.I. and not to refill Watkins’ Bextra prescription because he
believed, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that such actions were not
medically necessary. Watkins has not countered Dr. Martin’s testimony with any evidence
showing that the doctor’s decision to withhold the desired treatment was not a valid
exercise of professional judgment. Indeed, there is no indication from the neurologist’s
diagnosis sheets or any other evidence in the record that performance of an M.R.I. and
continued intake of Bextra were necessary to effectively treat Watkins’ symptoms. It
appears that there were multiple opinions among examining physicians regarding the
proper treatment, and there is no basis in the record for concluding that Dr. Martin’s
4
decision not to render treatment exactly in accordance with the specialist’s
recommendations is indicative of deliberate indifference.
As the evidence does not sufficiently show that a constitutional violation took
place, we need not address Watkins’ argument that the defendants should be held liable
because the alleged wrongful actions took place pursuant to an official policy or custom.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
5