Roger Mayweather v. Charles C. Foti, Jr.
Roger MAYWEATHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles C. FOTI, Jr., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
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.
*92 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 12 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that an occasional missed dose of medication does not, without more, constitute deliberate indifference)
-
(holding that pretrial detainee was not entitled to the best medical treatment money can buy)
-
(concluding that occasionally missed doses of medicine “fall far short” of establishing deliberate indifference)
-
(“Continuing back pain is unpleasant. Its existence does not, however, it and of itself demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred)
-
(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)
-
(the fact that a prisoner’s medical treatment “may not have been the best money could buy” is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation)
-
(“claim for inadequate medical care would succeed only if [plaintiff] proved that the denial of care constituted ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs’”)
Cited by 114 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Andrew White v. Jullian Whittington, Lt. Evans, Deputy Crook, Shift Sgt. Linton, C.O. Gilbert, and Shift Sgt. Normand
- Bobby Rand Golden, Jr. v. Sergeant Ford
- Vince Arnold Moore v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
- Yasir Qahtan Saud v. Felipe Martinez Jr.
- Amy Elizabeth Terry v. Orleans Parish Justice Center
- Thaddeus Jarvis v. Burl Cain
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.