Woodrow N. Bullock v. Department of Corrections

The Honorable Gustave Diamond, Senior District Judge for the United States*
District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 06-4608
WOODROW N. BULLOCK,
Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES;
POWELL, ADMINISTRATOR; SWITAJ, ADMINISTRATOR;
FREEMAN, DR.; JANE DOE, DR.
On appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
District Court No. 01-CV-3245
District Judge: The Honorable Noel L. Hillman
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
February 14, 2008
Before: SLOVITER and SMITH, Circuit Judges,
and DIAMOND, District Judge*
(Filed: February 15, 2008)
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Appellate1
jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District
Court’s grant of summary judgment. Natale v. Camden County Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d
2
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
In July of 2001, Woodrow N. Bullock filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the New Jersey Department of
Corrections and numerous other defendants alleging, inter alia, that they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs caused by schizophrenia while he
was incarcerated in New Jersey’s East Jersey State Prison (“EJSP”) from August 2000
through March 2001. After discovery closed, the only remaining claim before the District
Court was Bullock’s deliberate indifference action against Correctional Medical Services,
Inc. (“CMS”), a private company that served as the health care provider at EJSP. CMS
moved for summary judgment. It did not dispute that Bullock’s schizophrenia constituted
a serious medical need. CMS asserted, however, that it could not be liable because
Bullock’s medical care was consistent with the standard of care for patients with
Bullock’s psychiatric condition. In addition, relying on Natale v. Camden County
Correctional Facility, 318 F.3d 575 (3d Cir. 2003), CMS pointed out that Bullock had
failed to adduce any evidence to establish that CMS had a policy or custom that caused
the alleged constitutional violation. The District Court agreed that Bullock had not
established a custom or policy and granted summary judgment in favor of CMS. This
timely appeal followed.1

-- 2 of 3 --

575, 580 (3d Cir. 2003). 3
Bullock contends that the District Court erred because his own deposition
testimony “detailed the methodical and pervasive manner in which CMS refused to
properly address his serious medical condition.” He asserts that, under Natale, evidence
that a defendant has “turned a blind eye” to an inmate’s obvious medical need can be
sufficient to demonstrate a policy or custom of deliberate indifference. 318 F.3d at 584.
Bullock fails to appreciate that the record before us does not establish that CMS
turned a blind eye to an obvious medical need. To the contrary, the medical records are
extensive, documenting continuing care and treatment of his psychiatric symptoms by
nurses, psychologists and physicians numerous times each month. Accordingly, we find
no error by the District Court in concluding that Bullock failed to establish that CMS had
a policy or custom of deliberate indifference to Bullock’s serious medical needs.
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --