BERNARD GREGORY, Mr v. Prison Health Services, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6369
BERNARD GREGORY, Mr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM
L. WILLIAMS, MHC Warden; RUTH JOHNSON, Sgt.
MHC, A.R.P. Coordinator; JOAN HAMPSON, Ms.,
MHC Dietary Manager; ANTHONY MITCHELL, Lt.,
Corrections Dietary Officer, each named
defendant in sue, in individual & official
capacity; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Commissioner of
Corrections,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:05-
cv-01710-PJM)
Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007
Before MICHAEL, KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 5 --

- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie
Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland;
Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Gregory appeals the district court's order
granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissing
his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).
Gregory alleged violation of his civil rights arising out of
medical treatment he received for a right wrist injury sustained on
September 10, 2004, claiming the medical care he received was
negligent, inadequate, and involved numerous delays, and resulted
in permanent damage to his wrist. We conclude the district court
properly granted Defendants’ motions.
We review de novo the district court’s adverse grant of
summary judgment, and we construe the facts in the light most
favorable to Gregory, the non-moving party. See Laber v. Harvey,
438 F.3d 404, 415 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). “Summary judgment is
appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law.’” Laber, 438 F.3d at 415 (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(c)). Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of
prisoners constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain
proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 104 (1976). "Deliberate indifference may be demonstrated by
either actual intent or reckless disregard." Miltier v. Beorn, 896

-- 3 of 5 --

1
That Gregory’s surgery was rescheduled twice because his
treatment was twice transferred to a different medical provider
does not support a deliberate indifference claim, and the only
evidence to support Gregory’s allegations that his injury became
worse due to Defendants’ actions or inactions are his own,
- 4 -
F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). An Eighth Amendment violation
occurs where treatment is "so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or
excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to
fundamental fairness." Id.
We find Gregory’s claims subject to dismissal on the
ground that Gregory failed to allege acts or omissions sufficiently
harmful so as to demonstrate deliberate indifference.
Specifically, Gregory claims negligence, medical malpractice, and
disagreement with medical treatment, which claims do not support
relief under § 1983. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985). We find no facts in the record
to suggest that Defendants acted with the necessary state of mind
to support a viable § 1983 claim. Review of the record reveals
that Gregory was seen by medical staff the day of his injury, was
referred to an orthopaedic hand specialist in an outside emergency
room facility within four days of his initial injury, was
ultimately provided with surgery on October 22, 2004, after less-
intrusive means of treatment failed, and was seen approximately
twenty-four times for treatment of his injury (including
consultations with orthopaedic and neurological specialists)
through December 28, 2005. 1 In addition, Gregory received

-- 4 of 5 --

unsubstantiated allegations, which are insufficient to withstand
summary judgment. See Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d
409, 411-12 (4th Cir. 1986).
2
While Defendants also asserted that Gregory failed properly
to exhaust his administrative claims, we find that, even assuming
exhaustion, Gregory’s claims fell short of establishing deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs protected against by the
Eighth Amendment.
- 5 -
approximately 105 physical therapy treatments beginning on November
17, 2004, and lasting through mid-November 2005. This
uncontradicted evidence belies Gregory’s claims of deliberate
indifference. 2
Accordingly, we deny Gregory’s motion to dismiss, and
affirm the district court’s dismissal of Gregory’s action. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --