Setliff v. Henry County Jail

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MORTON RONALD SETLIFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 95-7159
HENRY COUNTY JAIL; FRANK CASSELL;
PATSY SCEARCE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-94-941-R)
Submitted: May 16, 1996
Decided: May 31, 1996
Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Morton Ronald Setliff, Appellant Pro Se. William Carrington Thomp-
son, Chatham, Virginia, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint following a bench trial before a mag-
istrate judge.1 We affirm. Following a review of the record and tran-
script tapes of the bench trial, we find no reversible error.
Appellant, a state prisoner, asserted that he did not receive proper
medical treatment for the care of his amputated leg while he was
incarcerated as a pre-trial detainee. Appellant complained of pain and
swelling in his leg, combined with problems fitting his prosthesis.
Within a week of his initial complaint regarding the pain in his leg,
he was seen by an orthopedic specialist. In the following days, Appel-
lant was also seen by the prison physician, a prosthetic specialist and
a physical therapist. However, Appellant continued to complain of
pain. The Appellee nurse attended to these complaints pursuant to the
telephonic instructions from both the orthopedic specialist and the
prison physician.
We find that Appellant received prompt attention for his medical
complaints. Although the physicians could have requested the Appel-
lant be seen for additional or follow-up examinations, their failure to
do so could only amount to negligence.2 Because the nurse merely
followed the physicians' orders, we further find that her actions do
not meet the standard of deliberate indifference to Appellant's medi-
cal condition and that Appellant's § 1983 action was properly dis-
missed. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
Our review of the record revealed that Appellant raised several
other medical claims in his § 1983 complaint that he failed to raise at
trial despite being given an opportunity to do so. We find that Appel-
lant has effectively waived appellate review of those claims. See
United States v. Maxton, 940 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
_________________________________________________________________
1 All parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) (1988).
2 The Appellant did not assert any claims against the physicians.
2
502 U.S. 949 (1991). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the dismissal of Appellant's § 1983 action. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3