Rahsan Drakeford v. Dr. Mullin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00253-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000038939]. Mailed to: R Drakeford. [16-7206]

Appeal: 16-7206

Doc: 18

Filed: 03/09/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7206

RAHSAN DRAKEFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. MULLINS; NURSE SCOTT,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:15-cv-00253-JLK-RSB)

Submitted:

February 22, 2017

Decided:

March 9, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rahsan
Drakeford,
Appellant
Pro
Se.
Rosalie
Fessier,
TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7206

Doc: 18

Filed: 03/09/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Rahsan Drakeford commenced a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
against

Dr.

Benny

Mullins

and

Nurse

S.

Scott,

claiming

deliberate indifference to his medical needs following a wrist
fracture suffered while Drakeford was incarcerated.
appeals

from

the

district

court’s

order

Drakeford

granting

summary

judgment to Mullins and Scott and dismissing the complaint, and
we affirm.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Smith v.

Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted).

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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“A prison official’s deliberate indifference to an inmate’s
serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
under the Eighth Amendment.”

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

178 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976)).
must

An inmate alleging a deliberate indifference claim

establish

that

his

medical

condition

was

objectively

serious—that is, “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as
mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay
2

Appeal: 16-7206

Doc: 18

person

Filed: 03/09/2017

would

attention.”

easily

Pg: 3 of 4

recognize

the

for

the

at

doctor’s

official

subjectively

The inmate must also show

knew

of

and

disregarded

excessive risk to the inmate’s health or safety.
F.3d

a

Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008)

(internal quotation marks omitted). *
that

necessity

178

(citing

Farmer

v.

Brennan,

511

an

Jackson, 775
U.S.

825,

837

(1994)).
Drakeford alleged that Mullins, who treated him during the
thirteen days between his injury and surgery, did not timely
attend to his medical needs and was responsible for a delay in
scheduling

the

operation

necessary

to

repair

the

fracture.

However, Mullins’ affidavit, which was supported by Drakeford’s
medical records, demonstrated that Mullins diligently monitored
Drakeford and prescribed him various pain medications while he
was awaiting surgery.

When Mullins perceived that an orthopedic

consultation might delay the operation, he referred Drakeford to
another doctor, who performed the surgery two days later.
Drakeford
medication.

also
Scott

claimed
explained

that
in

his

Scott

refused

affidavit

that

him

pain

he

twice

delayed administering pain medication to Drakeford in order to

*

Mullins and Scott do not dispute the district court’s
finding that Drakeford’s injury constituted a serious medical
need.

3

Appeal: 16-7206

comply

Doc: 18

with

Filed: 03/09/2017

the

Pg: 4 of 4

prescription.

This

claim

is

borne

out

by

Drakeford’s medical records.
Drakeford did not offer any documentary evidence to refute
these accounts, nor was there any evidence that Mullins or Scott
consciously disregarded any risk to Drakeford’s well-being.

To

the extent that Drakeford complains that additional, stronger,
or more frequent pain medication was required, this, without
more, is insufficient to prevail on a deliberate indifference
claim.

See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir.

1985).

Because Drakeford failed to raise a genuine issue of

material

fact

as

to

whether

Mullins

and

Scott

acted

with

a

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834
(internal quotation marks omitted), the district court properly
granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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

4