Alloway v. Wackenhut Correctional Facility , 15 F. App'x 743 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 1 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ARTHUR JOHNEL ALLOWAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 01-6014
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
WACKENHUT CORRECTIONAL (D.C. No. 00-CV-339-R)
FACILITY, d/b/a Lawton Correctional
Facility; DAYTON J. POPPELL,
Warden; DR. MARK FOGEL;
SANDRA ATWOOD; SECURITY
MAJOR; CORRECTIONS
CORPORATION OF AMERICA;
GARLAND JEFFERS, Warden;
FRANK PRICE, Classification
Supervisor; LANITA DAVIS, Case
Manager; MR. HUTCHERSON,
Contract Monitor for ODOC and CCA;
DR. ZAHID AHMAD; DR. TAMMY
KASTE, Physicians Supervisor for
CCA Facilities; KENNETH STEIN,
Physicians Assistant; PHYLLIS
HANSEN, Health Services Supervisor;
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
oral argument.
Arthur Johnel Alloway, a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, appeals the district court’s decision dismissing his complaint brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various federal and state laws. The magistrate
judge, in a thorough twenty-eight page report and recommendation, determined
that each of Mr. Alloway’s claims lacked merit and recommended granting the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the record de novo,
the district court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. For the
reasons stated below, we affirm.
I.
In his complaint, Mr. Alloway alleged that (1) the defendants provided him
inadequate medical treatment at both the Lawton Correctional Facility (“LCF”)
and at the Diamondback Correctional Facility (“DCF”); (2) the defendants denied
him access to visitors and family at DCF; (3) the defendants denied him access to
the courts at DCF; (4) the defendants were negligent in their classification and
-2-
transfer of him to DCF; and (5) the defendants placed him on grievance
restriction at DCF as a form of retaliation and harassment. On appeal, Mr.
Alloway contests only the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect
to his claim of inadequate medical treatment. We review the grant of summary
judgment de novo. See Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co. , 181 F.3d 1171, 1175
(10th Cir. 1999). Though we construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, we
will not supply additional factual allegations to round out the pleadings. See
Whitney v. New Mexico , 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
II.
The magistrate judge determined that Mr. Alloway’s claim that he received
inadequate medical care was insufficient as a matter of law because he failed to
show any deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants. To survive
summary judgment, a claim under the Eighth Amendment must show both that the
state action has denied the plaintiff the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities and that the state actors have shown deliberate indifference to the
plaintiff’s needs. See Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 297-98 (1991).
Furthermore, when a prisoner does in fact receive medical care, he has no Eighth
Amendment claim based merely on his disagreement with the nature of the
diagnosis. See Ledoux v. Davies , 961 F.2d 1536, 1537 (10th Cir. 1992). The
-3-
record is clear that Mr. Alloway’s medical conditions were monitored, that any
adverse reactions were treated, and that he received examinations and medications
or other treatment in response to his symptoms. At most, Mr. Alloway’s claims
amount to a difference of opinion or medical negligence.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the briefs
submitted by the parties. Applying the standards set out above, we affirm the
judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s
October 31, 2000 report and recommendation and the district court’s December 7,
2000 order adopting the recommendation. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-