Bradshaw v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1664
SYDNEY BRADSHAW,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges.
Sydney Bradshaw on brief pro se.
April 12, 2001
Per Curiam. Sydney Bradshaw appeals a district
court judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to state
a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). We review such a dismissal de novo. See
Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 806
(10th Cir. 1999).
Upon review of Bradshaw's brief and the record on
appeal, we conclude that his claims of the defendants'
allegedly inadequate response to his medical needs do not
rise to the level of a deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs so as to constitute a violation of the Eighth
Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual
punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)
(setting forth standard). At most, Bradshaw's dispute is
over the adequacy of his medical treatment. He prefers the
treatment regimen which he claims was ordered by a doctor at
the facility where he was previously incarcerated. But,
"[t]he right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
does not include the right to the treatment of one's
choice." Layne v. Vinzant, 657 F.2d 468, 473 (1st Cir.
1981). "'[W]here a prisoner has received some medical
attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the
treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second
guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims
which sound in state tort law.'" Id. at 474 (quoting
Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 (6th Cir. 1976)).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-3-