ROBERT COURTNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DR. CARL ADAMS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A mere disagreement with a prison physician regarding necessary medical care does not state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
An inmate sued a prison physician alleging denial of adequate medical care, specifically seeking stronger pain medication and an earlier surgery date.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Claim For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a pro se civil rights action1 brought by Robert Courtney, an inmate at Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. His petition alleged the deprivation of needed medical care, and named as respondent Dr. Carl Adams, a prison physician. Acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the district court2 dismissed the petition as frivolous. Petitioner has taken this appeal.
In his petition Courtney alleged that he has a growth, next to his heart which “seemed to be enlarging,” and that he has been scheduled for a major operation. In order to relieve the continuous pain he allegedly experiences, petitioner sought from Dr. Adams a prescription for pain-killing medication and an advance in the date of his operation. Petitioner alleges that the doctor prescribed a medicine only “about the same as aspirin” and that the date for his operation was not advanced. As grounds for dismissing the petition, Judge Eisele held that it evidenced “a mere disagreement with the prison physician as to what is necessary and proper for the petitioner’s medical care.” We concur in this characterization of the petition. Since the law is clear that such a medical disagreement fails to state a claim for relief, Mason v. Ciccone, 517 F. 2d 73 (8th Cir. 1975); Jones v. Lockhart, 484 F. 2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1973); Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F. 2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970), the district court proceeded correctly in dismissing the petition.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The petition was filed as a “supplemental Pleading Amendment” to a class action then pending in the district court. The district court held that petitioner had already “rested his case” in the class suit, and thus treated the pleading as a separate civil rights action.
Petitioner contends that this procedural decision by the district court was error. However, in view of petitioner’s failure to state a claim for relief, see discussion infra, the merits of this contention need not be reached.
. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Lieutenant John Ashley, 607 F.2d 789 (8th Cir. 1979)
Authorities Cited
- Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926 (8th Cir. 1970)
- Wiley Jones v. Lockhart, 484 F.2d 1192 (8th Cir. 1973)
- Mason v. Ciccone, 517 F.2d 73 (8th Cir. 1975)