Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 14-7582
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-01538-DCN)
Submitted:
KEENAN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
April 3, 2015
DAVIS,
Senior
PER CURIAM:
Martin James Sharpe appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
1983
(2012)
action
following
the
district
courts
order
Defendants
alleged
that
serious
medical
motions
Defendants
needs
for
were
when
summary
deliberately
they
failed
judgment.
Sharpe
indifferent
to
treat
his
to
his
painful
Matsushita Elec.
Indus.
574,
Co.
v.
Zenith
Radio
Corp.,
475
U.S.
587
(1986)
prevail
on
care,
plaintiff
claim
of
must
3
constitutionally
establish
acts
or
inadequate
omissions
injury
inflicted
was
sufficiently
serious.
Farmer
v.
one
that
has
been
diagnosed
by
physician
as
mandating
Iko
v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Next, the prisoner must show that the defendant acted with
deliberate
Farmer,
indifference
511
established
U.S.
by
at
to
834.
his
showing
that
serious
medical
Deliberate
the
need.
indifference
medical
treatment
See
can
was
be
so
or
to
be
intolerable
to
fundamental
fairness.
Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990), overruled
in part on other grounds by Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
[A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care
does
not
satisfy
the
standard,
and
thus
Moreover,
mere
disagreement
mere
negligence
in
an
inmate
and
Cir. 1975).
A delay in
prescribed
medical
treatment
stated
an
Eighth
Amendment claim).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sharpe,
we conclude that the district court properly granted summary
judgment to Defendant McMillian and Defendant Akerman.
However,
Defendant
Ubah,
to
be
misplaced.
Sharpes
sworn
Accordingly,
we
order.
vacate
that
portion
of
the
district
courts
The
This
case
is
remanded
to
the
district
court
for
further proceedings.
We deny Sharpes motion for the appointment of counsel.
dispense
with
contentions
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED