Green v. Stanley

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41354
Summary Calendar
JERRY DALE GREEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
REGINALD STANLEY, MD,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CV-19
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry Dale Green, Texas prisoner # 782210, appeals the grant
of summary judgment to Dr. Reginald Stanley and the subsequent
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights complaint. Green
argues that the fact that Dr. Stanley, as unit physician, has
sole discretion in the treatment of inmates is unconstitutional
because it denies inmates a choice in medicine and treatment. He
contends that he has the right to daily pain medication and that

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-41354
-2-
it is cruel and unusual punishment to deny him effective pain
relief when it is available in the prison infirmary. We review
the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Tolson v. Avondale
Indus., Inc., 141 F.3d 604, 608 (5th Cir. 1998).
Green’s medical records rebut Green’s allegations that Dr.
Stanley was indifferent to Green’s medical needs. See Banuelos
v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). Green was not
denied treatment for his pain by Dr. Stanley but was often given
Tylenol instead of Darvocet, which Dr. Stanley explained was
appropriate due to Green’s admitted dependence upon pain killers
and other medical problems. Thus, Green has alleged only a
disagreement with his medical treatment, which does not state an
Eighth Amendment claim. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286,
292 (5th Cir. 1997).
Additionally, the district court did not err in finding that
Dr. Stanley was qualifiedly immune. Green has not alleged a
constitutional violation under current law and he has not shown
that Dr. Stanley’s actions were objectively unreasonable with
reference to the clearly established law at the time of the
conduct in question. See Petta v. Rivera, 143 F.3d 895, 899-900
(5th Cir. 1998).
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Green’s motion
for a temporary restraining order and a motion to appoint an
expert, which included a request that counsel be appointed, are
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --