Correctional facility granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim alleging improper medical care under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleging the defendants, a correctional center, an investigator, medical defendants and others, acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and summary judgment. The prisoner appealed. The Eighth Amendment, through its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, mandates that prison officials not act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs by denying or delaying medical care. In order to sustain a constitutional claim, a prisoner must make: (1) an "objective" showing that the prisoner's medical needs were sufficiently serious; and (2) a "subjective" showing that the prison official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. To act with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is to recklessly disregard a substantial risk of serious harm. The court found that the plaintiff presented no evidence showing that the medical defendants changed a doctor's order regarding his dietary supplement regimen or that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The court found that a reasonable jury could not have found that any of the medical defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner's medical needs when the defendants provided treatment through regularly-scheduled appointments and when provided written requests for treatment. There was insufficient evidence upon which a jury could have concluded that the medical defendants disregarded the risk to the prisoner's safety. During the administration of his injections, the prisoner received sufficient doses of the medication, and when the prisoner raised the issue regarding improper rotation of the injection site, steps were taken to remedy the problem. The judgment was affirmed.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2011