UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6369

BERNARD GREGORY, Mr.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM

L. WILLIAMS, MHC Warden; RUTH JOHNSON, Sgt.

MHC, A.R.P. Coordinator; JOAN HAMPSON, Ms.,

MHC Dietary Manager; ANTHONY MITCHELL, Lt.,

Corrections Dietary Officer, each named

defendant in sue, in individual & official

capacity; FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Commissioner of

Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, 

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:05-

cv-01710-PJM)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 7, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Barry Chazen, Gina Marie

Smith, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale, Maryland;

Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore

Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Gregory appeals the district court's order

granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissing

his civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).

Gregory alleged violation of his civil rights arising out of

medical treatment he received for a right wrist injury sustained on

September 10, 2004, claiming the medical care he received was

negligent, inadequate, and involved numerous delays, and resulted

in permanent damage to his wrist. We conclude the district court

properly granted Defendants’ motions.

We review de novo the district court’s adverse grant of

summary judgment, and we construe the facts in the light most

favorable to Gregory, the non-moving party. See Laber v. Harvey,

438 F.3d 404, 415 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc). “Summary judgment is

appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law.’” Laber, 438 F.3d at 415 (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c)). Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of

prisoners constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain

proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 104 (1976). "Deliberate indifference may be demonstrated by

either actual intent or reckless disregard." Miltier v. Beorn, 896
 1

That Gregory’s surgery was rescheduled twice because his

treatment was twice transferred to a different medical provider

does not support a deliberate indifference claim, and the only

evidence to support Gregory’s allegations that his injury became

worse due to Defendants’ actions or inactions are his own,

- 4 -

F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990). An Eighth Amendment violation

occurs where treatment is "so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or

excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to

fundamental fairness." Id.

We find Gregory’s claims subject to dismissal on the

ground that Gregory failed to allege acts or omissions sufficiently

harmful so as to demonstrate deliberate indifference.

Specifically, Gregory claims negligence, medical malpractice, and

disagreement with medical treatment, which claims do not support

relief under § 1983. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985). We find no facts in the record

to suggest that Defendants acted with the necessary state of mind

to support a viable § 1983 claim. Review of the record reveals

that Gregory was seen by medical staff the day of his injury, was

referred to an orthopaedic hand specialist in an outside emergency

room facility within four days of his initial injury, was

ultimately provided with surgery on October 22, 2004, after lessintrusive means of treatment failed, and was seen approximately

twenty-four times for treatment of his injury (including

consultations with orthopaedic and neurological specialists)

through December 28, 2005.1 In addition, Gregory received
unsubstantiated allegations, which are insufficient to withstand

summary judgment. See Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d

409, 411-12 (4th Cir. 1986).

 2While Defendants also asserted that Gregory failed properly

to exhaust his administrative claims, we find that, even assuming

exhaustion, Gregory’s claims fell short of establishing deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs protected against by the

Eighth Amendment. 

- 5 -

approximately 105 physical therapy treatments beginning on November

17, 2004, and lasting through mid-November 2005. This

uncontradicted evidence belies Gregory’s claims of deliberate

indifference.2

Accordingly, we deny Gregory’s motion to dismiss, and

affirm the district court’s dismissal of Gregory’s action. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED