Willie Jackson v. Doctor Donald Sampson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:12-cv-00231-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999161849]. Mailed to: Willie Jackson, Tracy Dubey. [13-6293]

Appeal: 13-6293

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6293

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

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.

Appeal: 13-6293

Doc: 10

56(a).

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

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.

Appeal: 13-6293

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

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

Appeal: 13-6293

to

Doc: 10

follow

Filed: 07/30/2013

internal

Pg: 5 of 5

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