Martin Sharpe v. South Carolina Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999501323-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-01538-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999558687]. Mailed to: Martin Sharpe. [14-7582]

Appeal: 14-7582

Doc: 18

Filed: 04/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7582

MARTIN JAMES SHARPE, a/k/a James Martin Sharpe, a/k/a James
Sharpe,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SCDC; DR. WILLIAM
AKERMAN, SCDC Dental Director; DR. UBAH, Dentist Lee CI;
MCCLARY, Dental Assistant Lee CI; GREGG, Dental Assistant
Broad
River
CI;
DWIGHT
D.
MCMILLIAN,
Broad
River
Correctional Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-01538-DCN)

Submitted:

March 26, 2015

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

KEENAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

April 3, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

Martin James Sharpe, Appellant Pro Se.
James E. Parham, Jr.,
Irmo, South Carolina; Ashley S. Heslop, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM &
LANEY, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 14-7582

Doc: 18

Filed: 04/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7582

Doc: 18

Filed: 04/03/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Martin James Sharpe appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§

1983

(2012)

action

following

the

district

court’s

order

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
granting

Defendants’

alleged

that

serious

medical

motions

Defendants
needs

for

were

when

summary

deliberately

they

failed

judgment.

Sharpe

indifferent

to

treat

his

to

his

painful

wisdom tooth and delayed referral to an oral surgeon for its
extraction.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part,

vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court
and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party.
2012).

Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th Cir.

“The court shall 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).

“Where the record taken as a whole could

not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving
party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”

Matsushita Elec.

Indus.

574,

Co.

v.

Zenith

Radio

Corp.,

475

U.S.

587

(1986)

(internal quotation marks omitted).
To
medical

prevail

on

care,

plaintiff

a

a

claim

of

must
3

constitutionally
establish

acts

or

inadequate
omissions

Appeal: 14-7582

Doc: 18

Filed: 04/03/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

harmful enough to constitute deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

First, he must objectively show that the deprivation suffered or
the

injury

inflicted

was

sufficiently

serious.

Farmer

v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

A serious medical need “is

one

a

that

has

been

diagnosed

by

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.”

Iko

v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Next, the prisoner must show that the defendant acted with
deliberate
Farmer,

indifference

511

established

U.S.
by

at

to
834.

his

showing

that

serious

medical

Deliberate
the

need.

indifference

medical

treatment

See
can

was

be
“so

grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the
conscience

or

to

be

intolerable

to

fundamental

fairness.”

Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990), overruled
in part on other grounds by Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
“[A]n inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care”
does

not

satisfy

the

standard,

and

thus

diagnosis or treatment is insufficient.
105-06.

Moreover,

mere

disagreement

mere

negligence

in

Estelle, 429 U.S. at
between

an

inmate

and

medical staff regarding the proper course of treatment provides
no basis for relief.

Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th
4

Appeal: 14-7582

Doc: 18

Cir. 1975).

Filed: 04/03/2015

Pg: 5 of 6

Instead, officials evince deliberate indifference

by acting intentionally to delay or deny the prisoner access to
adequate medical care or by ignoring an inmate’s known serious
medical needs.

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-05; Young v. City of

Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2001).

“A delay in

treatment may constitute deliberate indifference if the delay
exacerbated the injury or unnecessarily prolonged an inmate’s
pain.”

McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010)

(vacating and remanding summary dismissal of complaint alleging
three-month 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).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sharpe,
we conclude that the district court properly granted summary
judgment to Defendant McMillian and Defendant Akerman.

However,

we find the district court’s reliance on Dulany v. Carnahan, 132
F.3d 1234, 1240 (8th Cir. 1997), with regard to Sharpe’s claims
against

Defendant

Ubah,

to

be

misplaced.

Sharpe’s

sworn

declaration creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to
Defendant Ubah’s knowledge of Sharpe’s serious medical needs and
precludes summary judgment as to Defendant Ubah.

Accordingly,

we

order.

vacate

that

portion

of

the

district

court’s

The

district court’s finding that Ubah was entitled to qualified
5

Appeal: 14-7582

Doc: 18

Filed: 04/03/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

immunity based on the lack of a constitutional violation is also
vacated.

This

case

is

remanded

to

the

district

court

for

further proceedings.
We deny Sharpe’s motion for the appointment of counsel.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

6