Mandrey Davis v. Captain Hilborn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03324-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999750724]. Mailed to: Mandrey D. Davis. [15-7356]

Appeal: 15-7356

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7356

MANDREY D. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAPTAIN HILBORN; VICKI HARDING; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03324-F)

Submitted:

January 29, 2016

Decided:

February 8, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mandrey D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7356

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Mandrey D. Davis, a North Carolina prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
(2012).

Davis alleged that prison officials were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs.
concluded

that

Davis’

allegations

were

The district court
frivolous

because

he

simply disagreed with the course of treatment provided by prison
We vacate and remand for further proceedings. ∗

officials.

A federal court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
complaint

at

any

time

the

court

determines

the

action

“is

frivolous or malicious . . . fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted[,] or . . . seeks monetary relief against
a

defendant

who

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

is
A

immune

from

complaint

is

such

frivolous

arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

relief.”
if

28
“it

U.S.C.

lacks

an

Neitzke v. Williams,

We review for abuse of discretion the

dismissal of a complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2004).

“An

error of law or clear error in finding of fact is an abuse of

∗

We express no opinion as to the merits of Davis’ claims,
concluding only that the claims were prematurely dismissed.

2

Appeal: 15-7356

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/08/2016

discretion.”

Pg: 3 of 4

Berry v. Schulman, 807 F.3d 600, 608 (4th Cir.

2015).
“A prison official’s deliberate indifference to an inmate’s
serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment.”
178 (4th Cir. 2014).

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,

To state a claim for medical mistreatment

under § 1983, a prisoner must plausibly allege that his medical
condition

was

objectively

sufficiently

serious

and

prison official acted with deliberate indifference.
official

is

deliberately

indifferent

to

an

that

the

Id.

“An

inmate’s

serious

medical needs only when he or she subjectively knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Id.

Deliberate indifference may

be “manifested . . . by prison guards in intentionally denying
or delaying access to medical care.”

Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976) (footnotes omitted).
Affording the complaint liberal construction, see Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), Davis alleged that he fell
from the top bunk of his bed face-first onto the concrete floor
and

suffered

Hilborn

significant

observed

Davis

and

permanent

lying

face-down

transported him to the medical ward.

injuries.
on

the

Captain
floor

and

Davis asserts that Hilborn

then denied Davis access to any medical care and transferred him
to segregation when Davis demanded treatment, resulting in three
3

Appeal: 15-7356

Doc: 15

Filed: 02/08/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

days passing before Davis was treated by prison medical staff.
The district court did not address this claim, concluding that
Davis merely complained about the course of treatment eventually
provided by prison officials.

Because the court did not address

the three-day delay in treatment, we vacate the district court’s
order and remand for further proceedings.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

4