William Davis III v. Correctional Med Sys , 334 F. App'x 519 ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-23-2009
William Davis III v. Correctional Med Sys
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-4880
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"William Davis III v. Correctional Med Sys" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1149.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1149
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 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-203 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-4880
___________
WILLIAM F. DAVIS, III,
Appellant
v.
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS;
FIRST CORR. MEDICAL; STATE OF DE; WARDEN RAPHAEL WILLIAMS;
COMMISSIONER/DOC STAN TAYLOR; NURSE BETTY; DR. ROBINSON,
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 1-04-cv-00209)
District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
May 29, 2009
Before: McKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 23, 2009 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Williams Davis appeals from the District Court’s December 11, 2008 order
denying Davis’ summary judgment motion and granting the appellees’ motion for
summary judgment. Because we determine that the appeal is lacking in arguable legal
merit, we will dismiss it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In 2001, doctors diagnosed Davis, incarcerated at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution, with a hernia. After complaining of severe pain and receiving
medical attention for several months, which included a liquid diet and multiple x-rays and
CT scans, Davis had emergency surgery on September 5, 2002. The operation revealed
evidence of a long-standing small bowel obstruction with a perforation, as well as
massive fecal peritonitis. Evidence indicated that the peritonitis had been present for
quite some time. Davis recovered from the surgery and returned to the general prison
population.
In 2004, Davis filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint in the District of
Delaware seeking compensation against the defendants for alleged deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs. Davis argued that the medical care he received was
inadequate because a misdiagnosis could have resulted in serious complications or death.
He also argued that Dr. Robinson and Nurse Bradley did not follow the standards for
health services “for jails national commission on correctional health care.” Davis and the
appellees both filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted the
2
appellees’ motion, holding that the record did not support a finding of deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need.1 Davis appeals.
We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review it for possible
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appeal must be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The District Court correctly analyzed Davis’ claim under the Supreme Court’s
standard for “deliberate indifference.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976)
(holding that the plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs in order to state an Eighth Amendment medical claim upon
which relief may be granted). “Only ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ or
‘deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs’ of prisoners are sufficiently
egregious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d
103, 108-09 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103). Allegations of medical
malpractice are not sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Id. Furthermore,
“mere disagreement as to the proper medical treatment” does not support a claim of an
Eighth Amendment violation. Monmouth County Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro,
834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir.
1977); Massey v. Hutto, 545 F.2d 45, 46 (8th Cir. 1976) (per curiam)); see also Johnson
1
Davis’ state medical claims against the appellees were dismissed.
3
v. Treen, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238-39 (5th Cir. 1985) (simple disagreement with the medical
treatment received or a complaint that the treatment received has been unsuccessful is
insufficient to set forth a constitutional violation.).
It is clear from the record that Davis consistently requested and received medical
attention on numerous occasions until undergoing the emergency surgery in September
2002. Doctors ordered multiple x-ray and CT scans in an attempt to ascertain the source
of his pain. For example, a partial x-ray of his abdomen taken on July 9, 2002, revealed
no evidence of any bowel obstruction. Another x-ray taken on August 6, 2002, was
normal. On several occasions, medical providers attempted to mitigate the problem
through a liquid diet. Ultimately he did receive corrective surgery. Because there is no
evidence of deliberate indifference, we determine that Davis’ appeal is lacking in
arguable legal merit, and will dismiss it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
4