From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayweather v. Foti

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 20, 1992
958 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1992)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that an occasional missed dose of medication was a "minimal" deficiency that falls "far short of establishing deliberate indifference"

Summary of this case from Brondas v. Corizon Health, Inc.
See 18 Summaries

Opinion

No. 91-3650. Summary Calendar.

April 10, 1992. Rehearing Denied May 20, 1992.

Roger Mayweather, pro se.

Alexander Adam Lambert, Jr., Freeman R. Matthews, Usry Weeks, Metairie, La., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before JONES, DUHE, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Mayweather challenges the district court's dismissal with prejudice, following a trial to the magistrate, of his complaint for constitutionally inadequate medical care while in the Orleans Parish prison. To the extent that treatment for his back injury occurred while he was a pretrial detainee, he was entitled to "reasonable medical care," Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir. 1987); after conviction, his claim for inadequate medical care would succeed only if he proved that the denial of care constituted "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Contrary to Mayweather's complaints, the record shows that he received continuous treatment for his back injury despite his incarceration. The treatment may not have been the best that money could buy, and occasionally, a dose of medication may have been forgotten, but these deficiencies were minimal, they do not show an unreasonable standard of care, and they fall far short of establishing deliberate indifference by the prison authorities. Continuing back pain is unpleasant. Its existence does not, however, in and of itself demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Mayweather v. Foti

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 20, 1992
958 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1992)

holding that an occasional missed dose of medication was a "minimal" deficiency that falls "far short of establishing deliberate indifference"

Summary of this case from Brondas v. Corizon Health, Inc.

holding that an occasional missed dose of medication does not, without more, constitute deliberate indifference

Summary of this case from Kenion v. Kiby

holding that "deficiencies" in treatment, including times when the occasional "dose of medication may have been forgotten," do not constitute deliberate indifference

Summary of this case from Hubbard v. Denmark

holding that when the defendant received continuous medical treatment but where "a dose of medication may have been forgotten," defendant had not established a substantial risk of serious harm because while "continuing back pain is unpleasant" it does not "in and of itself demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred"

Summary of this case from Gilbert v. French

holding that continuing back pain suffered by pre-trial detainee/prisoner where his pain medication was sometimes skipped by prison officials, though unpleasant, was not a constitutional violation

Summary of this case from Johnson v. City of Centreville

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Jefferson v. Richland Det. Ctr.

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Taylor v. Bayou Corr. Ctr.

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Johnston v. Russell

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from McMillan v. Russell

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Kelm v. Tigner

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Davis v. Ouachita Corr. Ctr.

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Roberson v. Ouachita Corr. Ctr.

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Neal v. Franklin Par. Det. Ctr.

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Davis

finding that an inmate received adequate care, even though the treatment may not have been the best, and that any deficiencies in treatment were minimal; moreover, the plaintiff's continuing pain, in and of itself, did not demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Caldwell Par. Det. Ctr.

noting that only "reasonable care" is required and the fact that an inmate's medical treatment "may not have been the best money could buy" is insufficient to establish a federal violation

Summary of this case from Doty v. Gusman

stating continuous back pain, while unpleasant, does not demonstrate a constitutional violation

Summary of this case from Althouse v. Roe

stating continuous back pain, while unpleasant, does not demonstrate a constitutional violation

Summary of this case from ALTHOUSE v. ROE
Case details for

Mayweather v. Foti

Case Details

Full title:ROGER MAYWEATHER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CHARLES C. FOTI, JR., ET AL.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 20, 1992

Citations

958 F.2d 91 (5th Cir. 1992)

Citing Cases

Althouse v. Roe

The Fifth Circuit has held that the fact that medical care given is not the best that money can buy, and the…

ALTHOUSE v. ROE

The Fifth Circuit has held that the fact that medical care given is not the best that money can buy, and the…

482 Citing Cases