Willie Jackson v. Doctor Donald Sampson, No. 13-6293 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6293 WILLIE J. JACKSON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. DOCTOR DONALD SAMPSON; DOCTOR STEEN; WARDEN STEVENSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (6:12-cv-00231-TLW) Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Tracy S. Dubey, James E. Parham, Jr., JAMES E. PARHAM JR. LAW OFFICE, Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Jackson, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Jackson s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) action. Jackson alleged of that correctional Defendants medical institution indifferent to protection by treatment for his serious delaying his where staff he is medical and diagnosed and the warden housed were needs and ultimately disease. For deliberately violated denying the the equal requested reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal, Jackson primarily asserts that the district court erred indifference in granting claim. He summary alleges judgment that the on his deliberate court improperly applied the summary judgment standard and failed to recognize genuine issues of material fact regarding Defendants knowing denial of treatment and failure to follow institutional policies mandating additional treatment. We review de novo a district court s grant of summary judgment, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co., 639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is appropriate 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. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the non-moving party may not rely merely on allegations but must respond with competent evidence showing a genuine issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002). Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere scintilla party s] case. of evidence in support of [the non-moving Thompson, 312 F.3d at 649 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from acting with deliberate medical needs. indifference to a prisoner s serious See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). To establish deliberate indifference, an inmate must allege both that he experienced a deprivation that was objectively sufficiently serious and that subjectively the officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. De Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and emphasis omitted). Negligence or medical malpractice will not establish a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Id. at 634; Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999). unless Instead, the a medical constitutional provider s violation actions does were not so occur grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental 3 fairness. Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). An inmate s mere disagreement with the course of treatment provided by medical officers will not support a valid Eighth Amendment claim. Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th Cir. 1975). Viewed in the light most favorable to Jackson, the record creates no genuine issue of material fact to support his deliberate indifference claim. There is simply no evidence in the record that Jackson was denied necessary treatment or that any delay in treatment was the result of deliberate indifference by Defendants. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06 ( [A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care cannot be said pain to constitute or to be an unnecessary repugnant to the and wanton conscience infliction of of mankind. ). Jackson s dispute with Defendants decision not to authorize the particular treatment program he requested, and the subsequent course of monitoring he received, amounts to a disagreement with his course of treatment that is not cognizable under the Eighth Amendment. Moreover, prison officials failure to follow internal prison policies are not actionable under § 1983 unless the alleged breach of constitutional violation. 430 (8th Cir. 1997). policy rises to the level of a See Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, Therefore, any failure by prison officials 4 to follow internal correctional policies is insufficient, without more, to support Jackson s claim. Jackson also argues that the court erred in granting summary judgment on his equal protection claim, as an affidavit Jackson provided to the court was sufficient to support his claim that he was treated differently from similarly situated prisoners. To plaintiff must succeed first on an equal demonstrate that protection he has claim, been a treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal purposeful treatment discrimination. 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001). was the result Morrison v. of intentional Garraghty, 239 or F.3d We conclude that the affidavit upon which Jackson relies was insufficient to support a finding that he was denied treatment from others similarly situated or that any difference in treatment was due to purposeful discrimination by Defendants. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
