Withrow v. RoellWithrow v. Roell
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Garwood, Jones, Stewart (per curiam)
The Court has considered appellant‘s position after a review of the briefs and record excerpts and in light of the oral arguments. Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or law in the verdict or judgment.
AFFIRMED.
In 2002, we held in this pro se appeal that, without the express written consent of the parties, a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to try a civil action. Withrow v. Roell, 288 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir.2002); see
I.
This
Withrow‘s claims against Ballard were dismissed pre-trial. The jury found for the remaining defendants (Defendants).
II.
A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be raised by a
Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment‘s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference to a prisoner‘s serious medical needs, constituting an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference“. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Unsuccessful medical treatment, acts of negligence or medical malpractice, or a prisoner‘s disagreement with prison officials regarding medical treatment do not constitute an unconstitutional denial of medical care. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991); Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997).
Withrow‘s claim is based substantially on his assertion that Garibay, a nurse at the prison, mis-diagnosed him as not having a broken ankle, which led to delay in his receiving treatment. Garibay testified, however, that she had not diagnosed Withrow because she was not qualified to do so. Therefore, evidence sup-
Withrow also contends that the treatment by prison physician Dr. Reagan was deliberately indifferent because Dr. Reagan refused to send Withrow to a hospital before having his leg X-rayed, despite knowing that no X-ray technician was available. Withrow testified, however, that an X-ray technician was located two hours later. Therefore, evidence supports the verdict that Dr. Reagan was not deliberately indifferent.
Next, Withrow claims that prison physician Dr. Roell delayed sending Withrow to the hospital because of cost concerns. Dr. Roell testified, however: he had to wait for clearance from the hospital because it had no orthopedic beds open at the time of Withrow‘s injury; and any delay in treatment was because of Withrow‘s stable medical condition and the treatment that already had been rendered by the prison medical staff. Therefore, evidence supports the verdict that Dr. Roell was not deliberately indifferent.
Finally, Withrow contends that his level of care was constitutionally deficient. The verdict is supported by evidence of sufficient care provided him by the prison medical staff, including X-rays, Tylenol, treatment with a splint, immobilization, ice, and elevation.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.