In re: CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT LITIGATION
No. 10-12375
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
April 29, 2011
638 F.3d 1378
Maxine Aarons Given, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M & T Bank Corporation, a New York corporation, individually and operating by and through M & T Bank, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, a.k.a. M & T Bank, Defendants-Appellants.
Matthew R. Alsip, James A. Dunbar, Heather Mitchell, John T. Prisbe, Venable LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
After oral argument in this case, the United States Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1740, — L.Ed.2d — (2011). The district court‘s order denying the motion to compel arbitration is VACATED, and this case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court‘s opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.1
Benjamin N. MOOTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Sandeep Rahangdale, T. Blankenship, Larry A. Baker, Defendants-Appellees, Jeremy Vaughan, Defendant.
No. 10-13285
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
May 2, 2011
425 F. App‘x 857
Non-Argument Calendar.
Bill McCollum, Office of The Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant.
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin N. Moots, a state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint that prison officials Walter McNeil, Sandeep Rahangdale, Tammy Blankenship, and Larry Baker violated his civil rights under the Eighth Amendment.
Moots‘s complaint fails to allege that he has a serious medical condition or, even assuming that his condition is serious, that prison officials have been indifferent to Moots‘s medical needs. After Moots was imprisoned, he was diagnosed with gynecomastia, a condition that causes an enlargement of male breast tissue. Moots “received medical test[s] to determine” if “there [had been] an underlying cause for his condition” and if he had cancer, but the tests revealed Moots‘s gynecomastia requires only cosmetic treatment. Moots‘s “‘medical need [is not] one that, if left unattended, poses a substantial risk of serious harm.‘” Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1307 (11th Cir.2009) (quoting Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir.2003)). Moots has received ibuprofen for pain and “psychiatric treatment” to combat his “emotional suffering, depression, anxiety,” and problems with his self-image, and prison officials have housed him in a segregation unit to prevent any potential mistreatment by fellow inmates. Moots requested a mastectomy, but prison officials required that Moots first undergo a mammogram, which Moots refused. Moots‘s disagreement with the course of treatment provided by the prison officials does not “support a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.” Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir.1991).
The dismissal of Moots‘s complaint is AFFIRMED.