From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dickson v. Colman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 23, 1978
569 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1978)

Summary

holding that an inmate's high blood pressure presented no "true danger" or "serious threat" to his health

Summary of this case from NASA v. MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF ATLANTA PRETRIAL DETENTION CTR

Opinion

No. 77-3241. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

March 23, 1978.

Tolbert Dickson, pro se.

Donald G. Greiwe, James E. Thompson, Tampa, Fla., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.



Plaintiff Tolbert Dickson brought suit under section 1893 against the sheriff and the medical officer of the Orange County, Florida Jail, claiming damages for inadequate medical care. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the uncontroverted facts appearing in the affidavits failed to constitute the "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence indifference to serious medical needs" required by the Supreme Court in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 51 (1976). We affirm.

On May 24, 1975, plaintiff was incarcerated in the Orange County Jail, where he received no medical attention until November 5, 1975, one day after making a written request for an examination. The medical examination revealed elevated blood pressure. The examining physician stated that plaintiff's high blood pressure presented "no true danger" or "serious threat" to his health, and prescribed medication. Plaintiff also complained of continuing shoulder pain from an accident in 1972. Plaintiff's shoulder was not treated, as the doctor found that plaintiff had "essentially satisfactory and a full range of motion." Dickson admits that satisfactory medical care was administered to him from November 5, 1975 until December 17, 1975, but insists that for 33 days following December 17 he received no treatment because his medical records were not transferred to his new place of incarceration. Plaintiff asserts that he repeatedly requested medical care between May 25, 1975 and November 5, 1975, and for the 33 days following December 17, 1975.

In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 51 (1976), the Supreme Court considered a section 1983 suit alleging inadequate medical treatment. The Court held that inadequate medical care did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment cognizable under section 1983 unless the mistreatment rose to the level of " deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" (emphasis added). 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 51 (1976). The uncontroverted facts of this case manifestly belie the existence of the requisite deliberation and gravity. See Gamble v. Estelle, 5 Cir., 1977, 554 F.2d 653, 654 (on remand). Cf. Procunier v. Navarette, ___ U.S. ___, 98 S.Ct. 855, 55 L.Ed.2d 24 (finding prison officials immune from suit under section 1983 where there was no conscious disregard of constitutional rights). Defendants did not receive a written request for a medical examination until November 4, 1975, and plaintiff obtained an examination the next day. Plaintiff admitted that he did not see a doctor or a nurse before November 5, and that his complaints of dizziness and headaches were made to his guards. Under the uncontroverted circumstances of this case, we find that the district court was not in error in holding that plaintiff could not demonstrate that whatever mistreatment he received was deliberate in character. The seriousness of the medical needs was contradicted by the affidavit of the examining physician.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Dickson v. Colman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 23, 1978
569 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1978)

holding that an inmate's high blood pressure presented no "true danger" or "serious threat" to his health

Summary of this case from NASA v. MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF ATLANTA PRETRIAL DETENTION CTR

finding that a three-year-old shoulder injury was not a serious medical need, given inmate's "essentially satisfactory" condition, full range of motion, and lack of treatment for the injury

Summary of this case from Coleman v. Danforth

finding that plaintiff's high blood pressure was not a 'serious threat' to his health

Summary of this case from Rainey v. Boyd

rejecting an inmate's claim of a serious medical need based on his high blood pressure and pain from an old shoulder injury, which a doctor determined the inmate had a full range of motion

Summary of this case from Fitzsimmons v. White

rejecting an inmate's claim of a serious medical need based on his high blood pressure and pain from an old shoulder injury, which a doctor determined the inmate had a full range of motion

Summary of this case from Palmer v. Corizon Med. Co.

rejecting an inmate's claim of a serious medical need based on his high blood pressure and pain from an old shoulder injury, which a doctor determined the inmate had a full range of motion

Summary of this case from DeShields v. Tirado-Montes

In Dickson v. Colman, 569 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1978), a case citing Navarette, we emphasized that Gamble's "deliberate indifference" standard required deliberate conduct.

Summary of this case from Bogard v. Cook

indicating that doctor's determination inter alia that plaintiff had a satisfactory and full range of motion in shoulder despite pain refuted that plaintiff had a serious medical need

Summary of this case from Farrington v. Butner
Case details for

Dickson v. Colman

Case Details

Full title:TOLBERT DICKSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MELVIN COLMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Mar 23, 1978

Citations

569 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1978)

Citing Cases

Tucker v. Gusman

Certainly, Tucker did not suffer "a life-long handicap or permanent loss" of the type required to constitute…

Severin v. Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff Office

Certainly, plaintiff did not suffer "a life-long handicap or permanent loss" of the type required to…