Danny Bridges v. Alvin Keller, Jr. ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7514
DANNY RAY BRIDGES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALVIN W. KELLER, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina
Department of Correction; ROBERT HAGGARD, R.N.; ALBERT KEITH
KUHNE, MD; PAYTON TURPIN, M.D.; ANTHONY D. SEARLES, M.D.;
PAULA Y. SMITH, M.D., individually and in her capacity as
Director of Health Services for the North Carolina
Department of Correction,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE I, MD; S. KILLEY, LPN; JOHN MORGAN, FNP; JOHN DOE
2,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00113-MR-DSC)
Submitted: February 22, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013
Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Strauss, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kimberly D. Grande,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Elizabeth P. McCullough, Kelly Street Brown, YOUNG MOORE AND
HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Danny Ray Bridges appeals the dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). He argues on appeal that the district court
erred in concluding that he failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted because his allegations create a triable
issue as to whether the prison officials and medical personnel
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need.
Defendants Searles, Kuhne, and Smith respond that Bridges’s
allegations are insufficient to demonstrate deliberate
indifference. * We affirm.
Bridges alleged that he suffered from an undiagnosed
torn rotator cuff from 2005 until 2010, when he ultimately
received corrective surgery and physical therapy. He alleged
that throughout this period, prison medical personnel did not
perform the appropriate diagnostic tests and that he thus did
not receive effective treatment for his condition. Bridges
alleged that the ineffective treatment and failure to correctly
diagnose his injury constitute deliberate indifference to his
severe medical need.
*
Because we conclude that the district court correctly
dismissed Bridges’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), we do not
address the Defendants’ alternative arguments.
3
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th
Cir. 2009). To survive such a motion, a complaint’s “[f]actual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level,” with “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). We must “accept as true
all well-pleaded allegations and view the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.” Philips, 572 F.3d at 180.
In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim for
inadequate medical care, a prisoner must allege that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The
prisoner must first show that the medical need is sufficiently
serious. Next, the plaintiff must show deliberate indifference
on the part of treating officials. See, e.g., Miltier v. Beorn,
896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). Deliberate indifference is a
high standard; a showing of negligence will not suffice.
Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999). Instead,
officials evince deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need by completely failing to consider an inmate’s complaints or
by acting intentionally to delay or deny the prisoner access to
adequate medical care. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05.
4
Disagreement regarding the proper course of treatment provides
no basis for relief. Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th
Cir. 1975).
We conclude that Bridges’s complaint failed to state a
claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. His allegations
demonstrated that prison officials were promptly responsive to
his complaints and regularly administered treatment. That they
ultimately failed to correctly diagnose his injury does not
render their responses deliberately indifferent. Further, the
defendants did not have actual knowledge of the precise nature
of Bridges’s injury. Thus, their treatment efforts, including
pain medication, an x-ray, and steroid injections, do not
constitute deliberate indifference. We further conclude that
because Bridges failed to state a claim for a constitutional
violation, he also failed to state a claim for supervisory
liability or unconstitutional policy administration.
We thus affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5