Darnell Williams v. Joseph Macut, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: AMBRO, GREENAWAY JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. BLD-105

Case: 16-3958

Document: 003112538586

Page: 1

BLD-105

Date Filed: 02/14/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-3958
___________
DARNELL JACOB WILLIAMS,
Appellant
v.
JOSEPH D. MACUT; PRIME CARE, INC.;
PRISON MEDICAL STAFF
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 3-15-cv-01645)
District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
____________________________________

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
January 19, 2017
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 14, 2017)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-3958

Document: 003112538586

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/14/2017

Darnell Williams appeals, pro se and in forma pauperis, the District Court’s order
dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and denying leave to amend.
Because no substantial question is presented, we will summarily affirm.
Williams is incarcerated at the Forest State Correctional Institution in Marienville,
Pennsylvania. He alleged Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection violations occurred
while receiving medical treatment for an injured left ring finger. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Specifically, Williams alleged Defendants Joseph D. Macut, Prime Care Medical, and
Prison Medical Staff negligently and recklessly misdiagnosed his injury, causing him
pain and suffering. The District Court granted Defendant Macut and Prime Care
Medical’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and denied leave to amend.
Williams timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
District Court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss. Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679
F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012). Dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When considering a motion to dismiss, we must
accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant. Foglia v. Renal Ventures Mgmt., LLC, 754 F.3d
153, 154 n.1 (3d Cir. 2014). We review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of
discretion. U.S. ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 849 (3d
Cir. 2014).
2

Case: 16-3958

Document: 003112538586

Page: 3

Date Filed: 02/14/2017

Williams failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. To state an Eighth
Amendment claim, a plaintiff must allege acts or omissions by prison officials that
indicate deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr.
Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). Deliberate indifference occurs when the
defendant knows of the need for medical care and intentionally refuses to provide it,
exposing the inmate to “undue suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury.”
Monmouth Cty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987)
(internal quotations omitted). Mere disagreement with a prescribed treatment, however,
is not an actionable constitutional violation. Id.
The allegations of Williams’ complaint and the medical records attached to it
foreclose his Eighth Amendment claim. Williams alleged that he initially injured his left
ring finger while playing basketball in late May 2013, and was denied treatment and not
prescribed physical therapy. However, the medical records reveal that Williams was
initially seen by Defendant Macut on June 3, 2013, and subsequently seen more than
twelve times by Defendants in the four months following his injury. Defendants
repeatedly examined and treated his finger, which eventually required x-rays and surgery.
While Williams may disagree with the prescribed treatment, such disagreement is
insufficient to state a § 1983 claim. See Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 346. Accordingly,
Williams failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference, and dismissal was appropriate.
Furthermore, given the thorough description of the medical treatment Williams received,

3

Case: 16-3958

Document: 003112538586

Page: 4

Date Filed: 02/14/2017

the District Court was within its description to deny leave to amend. See Schumann, 769
F.3d at 849.
Williams likewise failed to state an equal protection claim. To state a successful
§ 1983 claim for denial of equal protection, a plaintiff must allege purposeful
discrimination – that he was treated differently from other similarly situated individuals
because of his membership in a protected class. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d
459, 465 (3d Cir. 1992). Alternatively a “class of one” equal protection claim may be
stated if a plaintiff alleges that the Defendants irrationally and intentionally treated him
differently from other similarly situated individuals. Phillips v. County of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 243 (3d Cir. 2008). Williams fails to state an equal protection claim under
either theory. In his complaint, Williams merely listed the Equal Protection Clause as a
federal law that was violated; he made no mention of membership in a protected class,
addressed the equal protection claim nowhere else in the complaint, and alleged no facts
that indicate he was treated differently – either purposefully or otherwise – from similarly
situated individuals. See id.; Keenan, 983 F.2d at 465. Accordingly, dismissal was
proper. In light of the above, denial of leave to amend was also within the District
Court’s discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

4