Danny Bridges v. Alvin Keller, Jr., No. 12-7514 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7514 DANNY RAY BRIDGES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALVIN W. KELLER, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction; ROBERT HAGGARD, R.N.; ALBERT KEITH KUHNE, MD; PAYTON TURPIN, M.D.; ANTHONY D. SEARLES, M.D.; PAULA Y. SMITH, M.D., individually and in her capacity as Director of Health Services for the North Carolina Department of Correction, Defendants Appellees, and JOHN DOE I, MD; S. KILLEY, LPN; JOHN MORGAN, FNP; JOHN DOE 2, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00113-MR-DSC) Submitted: February 22, 2013 Decided: Before KING, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. March 29, 2013 David A. Strauss, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Elizabeth P. McCullough, Kelly Street Brown, YOUNG MOORE AND HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Danny Ray Bridges appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2006) civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). He argues on appeal that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because his allegations create a triable issue as to whether the prison officials and medical personnel were deliberately Defendants Searles, allegations are indifferent indifference. * Kuhne, to and insufficient his Smith to serious respond medical that demonstrate need. Bridges s deliberate We affirm. Bridges alleged that he suffered from an undiagnosed torn rotator cuff from 2005 until 2010, when he received corrective surgery and physical therapy. ultimately He alleged that throughout this period, prison medical personnel did not perform the appropriate diagnostic tests and that he thus did not receive effective treatment for his condition. Bridges alleged that the ineffective treatment and failure to correctly diagnose his injury constitute deliberate indifference to his severe medical need. * Because we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Bridges s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), we do not address the Defendants alternative arguments. 3 We review de novo a district court s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009). To survive such a motion, a complaint s [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, with enough facts to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). state a claim to Bell Atl. Corp. v. We must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In inadequate order to medical state care, a Philips, 572 F.3d at 180. an Eighth prisoner Amendment must allege claim that for prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). The prisoner must first show that the medical need is sufficiently serious. Next, the plaintiff must show deliberate indifference on the part of treating officials. See, e.g., Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). Deliberate indifference is a high standard; a showing of negligence will not Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999). suffice. Instead, officials evince deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by completely failing to consider an inmate s complaints or by acting intentionally to delay or deny the prisoner access to adequate medical care. Estelle, 4 429 U.S. at 104-05. Disagreement regarding the proper course of treatment provides no basis for relief. Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th Cir. 1975). We conclude that Bridges s complaint failed to state a claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment. His allegations demonstrated that prison officials were promptly responsive to his complaints and regularly administered treatment. That they ultimately does failed to correctly diagnose his injury render their responses deliberately indifferent. not Further, the defendants did not have actual knowledge of the precise nature of Bridges s injury. Thus, their treatment efforts, including pain x-ray, medication, an and steroid constitute deliberate indifference. injections, do not We further conclude that because Bridges failed to state a claim for a constitutional violation, he also failed to state a claim for supervisory liability or unconstitutional policy administration. We dispense thus with contentions are affirm oral the district argument because adequately presented court s in the the judgment. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5