McClay v. Gusman et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 , 9 . Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/14/12.(jjs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BYRON McCLAY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-2863

SHERIFF MARLIN N. GUSMAN ET AL.

SECTION: R

ORDER
Plaintiff Byron McClay filed this pro se and in forma
pauperis complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed
de novo the complaint, the record, the applicable law, the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the plaintiff’s
objections thereto, the Court approves the Report and adopts it
as its opinion.
In his opposition to the Magistrate’s Report, plaintiff
contends that his medical condition was “incompetently
misdiagnosed” by the medical staff at the detention facility in
which he was incarcerated, and that the staff showed deliberate
indifference to his medical problems. As noted by the Magistrate
Judge, however, the medical staff prescribed appropriate
medication to address plaintiff’s high blood pressure and altered
the drug regimen when plaintiff began to suffer nose bleeds.

Whether or not the attempts to treat plaintiff’s hypertension
while eliminating the side effects proved successful, the staff
did not intentionally ignore plaintiff’s ailments. See Gobert v.
Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006) (“A showing of
deliberate indifference requires the prisoner to submit evidence
that prison officials refused to treat him, ignored his
complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in
any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard
for any serious medical needs.”) (internal quotation marks and
footnotes omitted).
Plaintiff also contends that he was forced to occupy an
overcrowded cell for four months; that he was forced to sleep on
a mat on the floor of the cell for a period of 17 days; that the
cell’s walls had peeling paint and mold; and that the cell’s
toilet frequently overflowed when flushed. To bring a claim of
inadequate prison conditions within the ambit of the Eighth
Amendment, a prisoner must show that the defendants “(1) were
aware of facts from which an inference of an excessive risk to
the prisoner’s health or safety could be drawn and (2) that they
actually drew an inference that such potential for harm existed.”
Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998). As
discussed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, plaintiff’s
allegations neither indicate that plaintiff faced an excessive
2

risk of harm, nor that defendants recognized any such risk.
Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, that prison officials might
have known that the unpleasant conditions existed does not imply
that they also appreciated that the conditions posed a
significant threat to plaintiff’s health.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s suit is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 14th day of August, 2012.
__

_________________________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3