You're viewing Docket Item 60 from the case Richie v. UTMB Hospital Galveston et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:12-cv-00322 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 06/04/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION


JEFFERY ALAN RICHIE,

Plaintiff,
VS.

UTMB HOSPITAL GALVESTON, et al,

Defendants.



§

§

§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-322
§

§

§

§
§

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR

AMEND THE JUDGMENT

Pending is plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment (D.E. 46). Because




plaintiff complains that due to circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to timely

file his objections to the Martinez1 Report, his objections are considered de novo.



As indicated in the original order, in order to state a § 1983 claim for denial of

adequate medical treatment, a prisoner must allege the official(s) acted with deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303.(1991);

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th

Cir. 1991). Negligent medical care does not constitute a valid § 1983 claim. Mendoza

v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). See also Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315,

319 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[i]t is well established that negligent or erroneous medical treatment

or judgment does not provide a basis for a § 1983 claim”). Active treatment of a

prisoner’s serious medical condition does not constitute deliberate indifference, even if


1 Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978); Cay v. Estelle, 789 F.2d 318, 323 n. 4 (5th
Cir. 1986).

1 / 2

Case 2:12-cv-00322 Document 60 Filed in TXSD on 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2

treatment is negligently administered. See Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th

Cir. 1999); Mendoza, 989 F.2d at 195; Varnado, 920 F.2d at 321. Medical records of

sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and medication may rebut an inmate’s allegations of

deliberate indifference. Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). As

long as prison medical personnel exercise professional medical judgment, their behavior

will not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307,

322-23 (1982). Deliberate indifference is an “extremely high standard to meet.”

Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001).



Plaintiff’s disagreement with the information in his medical records and the

diagnosis of the medical professionals does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2013.





___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2 / 2