Rahsan Drakeford v. Dr. Mullin
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00253-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: R Drakeford. [16-7206]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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)
February 22, 2017
March 9, 2017
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, PC, Staunton, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Rahsan Drakeford commenced a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action
deliberate indifference to his medical needs following a wrist
fracture suffered while Drakeford was incarcerated.
judgment to Mullins and Scott and dismissing the complaint, and
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.”
Gilchrist, 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
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
An inmate alleging a deliberate indifference claim
serious—that is, “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as
mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay
Pg: 3 of 4
The inmate must also show
excessive risk to the inmate’s health or safety.
Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). *
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
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.
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
Pg: 4 of 4
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.
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
See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir.
Because Drakeford failed to raise a genuine issue of
“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.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?