Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-03958/USCOURTS-ca3-16-03958-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

BLD-105 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-3958

___________

DARNELL JACOB WILLIAMS,

 Appellant

v.

JOSEPH D. MACUT; PRIME CARE, INC.; 

PRISON MEDICAL STAFF

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 3-15-cv-01645)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 

Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 19, 2017

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 14, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-3958 Document: 003112538586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2017
2

Darnell Williams appeals, pro se and in forma pauperis, the District Court’s order 

dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim and denying leave to amend. 

Because no substantial question is presented, we will summarily affirm. 

Williams is incarcerated at the Forest State Correctional Institution in Marienville, 

Pennsylvania. He alleged Eighth Amendment and Equal Protection violations occurred 

while receiving medical treatment for an injured left ring finger. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Specifically, Williams alleged Defendants Joseph D. Macut, Prime Care Medical, and 

Prison Medical Staff negligently and recklessly misdiagnosed his injury, causing him 

pain and suffering. The District Court granted Defendant Macut and Prime Care 

Medical’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and denied leave to amend. 

Williams timely appealed. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 

District Court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss. Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 

F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012). Dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to plead 

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When considering a motion to dismiss, we must 

accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the 

light most favorable to the nonmovant. Foglia v. Renal Ventures Mgmt., LLC, 754 F.3d 

153, 154 n.1 (3d Cir. 2014). We review the denial of leave to amend for abuse of 

discretion. U.S. ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 849 (3d 

Cir. 2014). 

Case: 16-3958 Document: 003112538586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2017
3

Williams failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. To state an Eighth 

Amendment claim, a plaintiff must allege acts or omissions by prison officials that 

indicate deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. 

Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 582 (3d Cir. 2003). Deliberate indifference occurs when the 

defendant knows of the need for medical care and intentionally refuses to provide it, 

exposing the inmate to “undue suffering or the threat of tangible residual injury.” 

Monmouth Cty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987) 

(internal quotations omitted). Mere disagreement with a prescribed treatment, however, 

is not an actionable constitutional violation. Id.

The allegations of Williams’ complaint and the medical records attached to it 

foreclose his Eighth Amendment claim. Williams alleged that he initially injured his left 

ring finger while playing basketball in late May 2013, and was denied treatment and not 

prescribed physical therapy. However, the medical records reveal that Williams was

initially seen by Defendant Macut on June 3, 2013, and subsequently seen more than

twelve times by Defendants in the four months following his injury. Defendants

repeatedly examined and treated his finger, which eventually required x-rays and surgery. 

While Williams may disagree with the prescribed treatment, such disagreement is 

insufficient to state a § 1983 claim. See Lanzaro, 834 F.2d at 346. Accordingly, 

Williams failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference, and dismissal was appropriate. 

Furthermore, given the thorough description of the medical treatment Williams received, 

Case: 16-3958 Document: 003112538586 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2017
4

the District Court was within its description to deny leave to amend. See Schumann, 769 

F.3d at 849.

Williams likewise failed to state an equal protection claim. To state a successful

§ 1983 claim for denial of equal protection, a plaintiff must allege purposeful 

discrimination – that he was treated differently from other similarly situated individuals

because of his membership in a protected class. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 

459, 465 (3d Cir. 1992). Alternatively a “class of one” equal protection claim may be 

stated if a plaintiff alleges that the Defendants irrationally and intentionally treated him 

differently from other similarly situated individuals. Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 

515 F.3d 224, 243 (3d Cir. 2008). Williams fails to state an equal protection claim under 

either theory. In his complaint, Williams merely listed the Equal Protection Clause as a 

federal law that was violated; he made no mention of membership in a protected class, 

addressed the equal protection claim nowhere else in the complaint, and alleged no facts 

that indicate he was treated differently – either purposefully or otherwise – from similarly 

situated individuals. See id.; Keenan, 983 F.2d at 465. Accordingly, dismissal was 

proper. In light of the above, denial of leave to amend was also within the District 

Court’s discretion. 

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. 

See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

Case: 16-3958 Document: 003112538586 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/14/2017