DLD-100 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-4055

___________

SAMUEL WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

PRISON HEALTH SYSTEM, (PHS); DR. ALLEN SNYDER; NURSE STACY 

LATKANICH; ADMINSTRATOR LORI KWISNEK; ANGIE MARHEFKA, Grievance 

Coordinator; TONI COLLAND; KRISTEN P. REISINGER, Chief Grievance Officer; 

DORINA VARNER, Chief Grievance Officer; SUPERINTENDENT MELVIN S. 

LOCKETT; SUPERINTENDENT JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, Correctional and 

Health Care Administration sued in their individual and official capacities

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-01534)

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Maureen P. Kelly

____________________________________

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

and for Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 26, 2012

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 3, 2012)

_________________

OPINION

_________________
2

PER CURIAM

Samuel Williams, a Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the 

dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Because the appeal presents no substantial 

question, we will summarily affirm.

I.

Williams, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Greensburg (“SCIG”), 

filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages based on a claim that the

Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by 

deliberately disregarding his health care needs. According to his complaint, Williams 

informed SCIG medical staff in or about February 2006 that he had a boil on his face. 

Williams claims that Dr. Allen Snyder recommended that the boil be cut open and 

drained, but that other members of the medical staff ignored the recommendation and told 

Williams that it would go away. In July 2009, Williams requested that a dermatologist 

treat the boil, but claims that his request was ignored. In February 2010, after the boil 

worsened, Williams was administered a shot for the infection.

Williams also claims that in or about July 2006, he complained to SCIG medical 

staff about a “sandy feeling” in his eye, but did not receive immediate treatment. Soon 

thereafter, Williams’ eye began leaking fluid and he was taken to the hospital where he 

underwent an operation to repair a detached retina. Williams contends that upon his 

return to SCIG, medical staff failed to comply with the surgeon’s post-operative 

instructions and, as a result, he lost sight in his eye in or about December 2006.
3

The parties consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. 

Defendants Prison Health Services, Inc. (“PHS”) and Dr. Snyder (“the Medical 

Defendants”), and Defendants Nurse Stacy Latkanich, Administrator Lori Kwisnek, 

Greivance Coordinator Angie Marhefka, Toni Colland, Chief Grievance Officer Kristen 

Reisinger, Chief Grievance Officer Dorina Varner, Superintendent Melvin Lockett, and 

Superintendent Joseph Mazurkiewicz (“the DOC Defendants”) filed motions to dismiss 

the complaint, arguing that Williams’ claims are time-barred and/or fail to state a claim 

for relief. The Magistrate Judge granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss and Williams 

timely filed this appeal.

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review of an order granting 

a motion to dismiss is plenary. Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 

2008). After reviewing the record, we discern no error in the Magistrate Judge’s

analysis.

First, the Magistrate Judge Court correctly dismissed, on statute of limitations

grounds, Williams’ claim alleging that the Medical and DOC Defendants acted with 

deliberate indifference in treating his eye. “The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim 

arising in Pennsylvania is two years.” Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009). 

A § 1983 cause of action accrues on the date when a plaintiff knew or should have known 

his rights had been violated. See Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899, 919 (3d 

Cir. 1991).
4

Williams knew of the injury to his eye in or around December 2006--the date that 

he became blind. Indeed, he submitted with his complaint a copy of a grievance that he 

filed with the prison on December 4, 2006 describing that condition. Williams also 

submitted a letter that he received from an attorney dated August 1, 2008, in which the 

attorney declined to represent Williams but advised him that the statute of limitations 

began to run on the date that he became blind. Williams did not file his complaint in the 

District Court until November 2010, however. Accordingly, we agree that the claim is 

untimely and the District Court properly dismissed it on that basis.

The Magistrate Judge also properly dismissed Williams’ claim that the Medical 

and DOC Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when they 

ignored his July 2009 request for treatment of his boil by a dermatologist.

The Eighth Amendment, through its prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,

mandates that prison officials not act with deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious 

medical needs by denying or delaying medical care. In order to establish that inadequate 

medical care has risen to the level of a Constitutional deprivation, an inmate-plaintiff 

must demonstrate that he had a “serious medical need” to which the defendants were 

“deliberately indifferent.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 

With regard to the DOC Defendants, with the exception of Nurse Stacy Latkanich, 

those individuals are non-medical staff. They are either grievance officers or 

administrators. We have previously determined that non-medical officials are entitled to 

rely on medical professionals’ judgment. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 
5

2004) (“[A]bsent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their 

assistants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner, a non-medical prison official

. . . will not be chargeable with the Eighth Amendment scienter requirement of deliberate 

indifference.”); Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993).

Williams does not plead any facts or present any documentation suggesting that 

any of the grievance officers or administrators named in the complaint was aware of his 

February 2009 request to see a dermatologist. Williams submitted a document with his 

complaint stating only that he informed a DOC “staff member” of his request. 

Accordingly, because Williams asserts no reason why the DOC employees named in his 

complaint would have known (or had reason to believe) that medical staff had mistreated 

or failed to treat his condition, the claim was properly dismissed. Spruill, 372 F.3d at 

236.1

With regard to the Medical Defendants, even assuming that Williams’ condition 

was sufficiently serious, we agree with the District Court that he has failed to allege facts 

suggesting that those defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 

As mentioned, Williams’ provided documentation indicating that his request to see a 

dermatologist was directed to a DOC staff member. Absent an assertion that the Medical 

Defendants were aware of and denied his request for treatment, Williams has failed to 

state a claim for deliberate indifference against them. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 

 

1 Although Nurse Latkanich is a member of the medical staff, the only claim that 

Williams asserts against her involves her alleged failure to administer medication 
6

F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (holding that a “defendant in a civil rights action must 

have a personal involvement in the alleged wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely 

on the operation of respondeat superior.”).2

Finally, to the extent that Williams raised a state law tort claim, the District Court 

acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that 

remaining claim. See Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 584 F.3d 169, 174 (3d Cir. 

2009).

Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily 

affirm the judgment below. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Williams’ 

request for appointment of counsel is denied. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d 

Cir. 1993).

 

following his July 2006 eye surgery. As we have explained, that claim is time-barred.

2 Williams similarly fails to allege that either Dr. Snyder or PHS ignored the initial 

diagnosis/recommendation that the boil be removed.