Joey Chandler v. Wexford Health, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60714
Summary Calendar

JOEY MONTRELL CHANDLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

WEXFORD HEALTH; MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
DOCTOR JUAN SANTOS; DOCTOR PAUL MADUBUONWU; MARSHALL
FISHER, Commissioner; DOCTOR GLORIA PERRY, Chief Medical Officer;
DOCTOR BROWN; CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Retired Mississippi Department
of Corrections Commissioner; DOCTOR LORENZO CABE, Former Mississippi
Department of Corrections Doctor; DOCTOR JOHN HOCHBURG, Former
Doctor; JERRY WILLIAMS, Deputy Commissioner; DOCTOR LEHMAN,
Former Doctor; SUPERINTENDENT EARNEST LEE; HENDRIK KUIPER,
Medical Director,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:15-CV-102

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 13, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 18-60714 Document: 00515310009 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020

No. 18-60714
2
Joey Montrell Chandler, Mississippi prisoner # 109052, filed a civil
rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The
district court found that all claims of denial of medical care, including those
barred by the statute of limitations, failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. Specifically, the district court found that Chandler could not
show a deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs because the lengthy
medical record showed that he had been examined and treated on hundreds of
occasions for his various medical problems. The district court concluded that
his complaint was simply a disagreement with the course of treatment.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court. See Mississippi River Basin Alliance v.
Westphal, 230 F.3d 170, 174 (5th Cir. 2000); F
ED. R. CIV. P. 56(a), (c)(1). All of
Chandler’s arguments are based on his assertions that the treatment was
ineffective and that the doctors were incompetent. Giving full credit to the
veracity and seriousness of Chandler’s factual complaints, his assertions of
unsuccessful medical treatment, negligence, neglect, medical malpractice, and
mistaken judgment are the types of claims which do not amount to deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,
321 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err in granting the motion for
summary judgment on the merits of Chandler’s claims. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Couched in terms of sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment,
Chandler argues that the defendants, in their official capacities, should not
have been dismissed because they were personally aware of the inadequacies
of his medical treatment. The district court did not dismiss any defendant or
Case: 18-60714 Document: 00515310009 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020

No. 18-60714
3
claim because a defendant was not personally aware of the factual occurrences
alleged. This issue has no merit.
Chandler argues that the district court erred in dismissing some of his
claims for inadequate medical care as time barred by the Mississippi statute
of limitations. We need not address this issue because the district court
specifically considered all of Chandler’s claims of inadequate medical care,
irrespective of date of occurrence, in granting summary judgment on the merits
of Chandler’s claims.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 18-60714 Document: 00515310009 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/13/2020