2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-9-2014

Joseph Cobbs v. Amelia Caputo

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-4798

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Joseph Cobbs v. Amelia Caputo" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 1063.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/1063
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-4798

___________

JOSEPH COBBS,

Appellant

v.

AMELIA CAPUTO, Administrator; 

PRIME CARE MEDICAL INC; NURSE CAROLINE LITTLE;

THERESA, (N.A)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 13-cv-04135)

District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle III

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 25, 2014

Before: JORDAN, COWEN and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: October 9, 2014)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM
2

Pro se litigant Joseph Cobbs, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the District 

Court’s order granting the motion to dismiss his complaint. For the reasons set forth 

below, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Joseph Cobbs is incarcerated at Northampton County Prison in Easton, 

Pennsylvania.1 On March 5, 2012, he was involved in an altercation at the prison and his 

left ring finger was injured. He was taken to the medical unit, where Nurse Caroline 

Little examined him. Cobbs told Nurse Little that he thought his finger was broken. 

Nurse Little opined that it was not, issued him a temporary splint, and dismissed him.

Cobbs’s finger continued to hurt. He submitted several sick call request slips, 

followed by several medical grievances. He claims they were ignored. Some period of

weeks after the injury, Cobbs’s finger was x-rayed, which confirmed it was broken. This 

diagnosis led to further x-rays at St. Luke’s Hospital, where Cobbs ultimately underwent 

surgery on May 15, 2012, to correct the condition.

On July 15, 2013, Cobbs filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 

claiming a violation of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual 

punishment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named as defendants Health Care Administrator 

Amelia Caputo; Prime Care Medical, Inc.; Nurse Caroline Little; and Nurse’s Aide 

 

1

 Cobbs has submitted a number of exhibits that are attached to his appellate brief. 

Because this case was decided at the motion-to-dismiss level, a level that focuses entirely 

on the sufficiency of the complaint alone, we do not consider these extraneous documents 

and recite facts gleaned solely from the amended complaint and the exhibits attached 

thereto. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus. Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 
3

Theresa (Nagle). Sua sponte, the District Court dismissed Prime Care Medical, Inc. as a 

party without prejudice, giving Cobbs leave to amend his complaint to claim that Prime 

Care’s policy or custom caused an alleged Eighth Amendment violation. Cobbs did not 

do so, and consequently his claims against Prime Care Medical remain dismissed.

The other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a 

claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court determined that 

Cobbs’s complaint was no more than an allegation of malpractice. Because an allegation 

of malpractice is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim, see Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976), the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the 

complaint. 2 Cobbs filed a timely notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 and exercise a plenary standard of review. See Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. 

Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013).

The District Court was correct to dismiss Cobbs’s complaint against Prime Care 

Medical, Inc. In this context, Prime Care Medical can be liable under § 1983 only if its 

policy or custom violates a constitutional right. See Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. 

Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583-84 (3d Cir. 2003). Cobbs’s claim against Prime Care is 

wholly based on a theory of respondeat superior. And despite the District Court’s 

express invitation to do so, he did not amend his complaint to allege that it was Prime 

 

1196 (3d Cir. 1993).

2

 In our order dated May 15, 2014, we directed Cobbs to discuss whether the District 

Court should have granted him leave to amend his complaint, pursuant to Grayson v. 
4

Care’s policy or custom to violate prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights in this way. His 

claim against Prime Care thus fails at the outset as a matter of law.

Nor did the District Court err in granting the remaining defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. To state an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner-plaintiff must plead facts that 

demonstrate “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. 

As the District Court correctly observed, negligence and malpractice do not constitute 

Eighth Amendment violations. See id. at 105-06. Mere disagreement over the proper 

course of treatment is likewise insufficient. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d 

Cir. 2004). Here, Cobbs contends that his finger should have been x-rayed earlier than it 

was, and argues that the delay in x-raying it constitutes deliberate indifference to a 

serious medical need. But the United States Supreme Court has made clear that it does 

not: “[a] medical decision not to order an X-ray . . . does not represent cruel and unusual 

punishment. At most it is medical malpractice . . . .” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107. Because 

malpractice does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, Cobbs’s complaint fails 

to state a constitutional claim.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order granting the motion to 

dismiss.

 

Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). He failed to do so.