Frenchis Abraham v. Yvonne McDonald, No. 12-6716 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6716 FRENCHIS GERALD ABRAHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. YVONNE MCDONALD, RN; JUDY RABON, RN; JON E. OZMINT, Director; A. J. PADULA, Warden; DOCTOR MOORE; MARCUS A. PRATT, LPN; DOCTOR BENOIR, MD; BENJAMIN F. LEWIS, JR., MD; JENNIFER N. BOWMAN, MAT; SAMANTHA F. MCCOY, MAT; FRAN CHAMBERS, LPN; MARIETTA DINGLE, Admin Asst, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge. (6:11-cv-00046-RMG) Submitted: August 31, 2012 Decided: September 7, 2012 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frenchis Gerald Abraham, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frenchis Abraham, a South Carolina inmate, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006), seeking relief on his claim that Amendment. Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Abraham alleged that Defendants displayed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by preventing timely and adequate treatment for his splenic cyst condition. Although the magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment, the district court concluded that no issue of fact remained and that based on the facts alleged, the acknowledged delay in Abraham s treatment did not cause him substantial harm. Because we believe the substantial harm issue is not, in this case, subject to resolution district at court s the grant summary of judgment summary stage, judgment we vacate the and remand for further proceedings. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of Am., 673 F.3d 323, 330 (4th Cir. 2012). A court must grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). [D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 2 pain prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Estelle v. Gamble, A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor s attention. F.3d 225, 241 omitted). (4th Cir. of difficulty urinating, diagnosed (internal quotation marks We conclude that Abraham s cysts, causing repeated instances serious 2008) Iko v. Shreve, 535 abdominal medical the pain, and vomiting, blood in condition. problem and the difficulty urine, Moreover, prescribed eating, constituted doctors treatment a initially in 2009; no significant treatment occurred until 2011. To show a defendant s deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a prisoner must allege the defendant knew of and disregarded the risk posed by that need. Id. [A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care does not satisfy the standard, and thus mere negligence in diagnosis or treatment is Estelle, 429 insufficient U.S. at to state 105-06. a Such constitutional claim. indifference can be displayed, however, through the response of prison doctors and other institutional including ignoring personnel an to inmate s medically necessary treatment. inmate s serious Id. 3 an medical condition or needs, delaying A delay indifference in if treatment the delay may constitute exacerbated unnecessarily prolonged an inmate s pain. 612 F.3d summary 636, 640 dismissal (7th of Cir. 2010) complaint the injury or McGowan v. Hulick, (vacating alleging deliberate and three-month remanding delay in dental treatment); see Smith v. Smith, 589 F.3d 736, 738-39 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding claim of delay in administering prescribed medical treatment stated an Eighth Amendment claim). In granting summary judgment in this case, the district court reasoned that Abraham did not suffer substantial harm from the acknowledged delay in treatment for his splenic cyst. However, we perceive whether Abraham did, in a genuine fact, suffer issue such of fact harm. as to Abraham regularly reported to medical staff abdominal pain, vomiting and blood in his urine. In his filings in Abraham also reported being unable to eat. the district court, Abraham complained of chronic and serious pain that significantly affected his daily activities, such as trouble swallowing food, [bowel trouble,] and trouble urinating. Additionally, Abraham continued to have pain following an aspiration procedure, prompting a doctor to order another CT scan. Abraham s cysts were pervasive, ultimately requiring that he undergo more extensive surgery. 4 Accordingly, we vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. * 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. VACATED AND REMANDED * We express no opinion on the claims of immunity asserted by Defendants below, as the district court has not yet addressed the issue of immunity. 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
