D LD

- 018 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 3647

___________ LEE J. ROWLAND ,

Appellant

v. WARDEN THOMAS DURAN; DEPUTY WARDEN JACQUELINE MOTTER; DEPUTY HARKE Y; SUPERINTENDENT MARIROSA LAMAS; DEPUTY ROBERT MARSH, Jr.; JEFFERY HORTON, Deputy Superintendent; TED WILLIAMS, Medical D epartment, Head Administration; C. SPA NGLER, Medical Administration; MR. RACKOVAN, PA. State F acility Grievance Coordinator; T. MILL ER, P.R.C. Committee; MS. C. REEDER, Medical Record; MS. RUPERT, Medical Nurse; DR. GREENBERG; P.A. SCHRACK

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 1

- 12

- cv - 02299 ) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________ 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 October 24, 2013 Be fore: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 1, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Lee J. Rowland appeals pro se from the order of the District Court dismissing his2

complaint. We will affirm. Rowland, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous employees of the Clinton County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”) and SCI

Rockview alleging that he received inadequate medical care at those facilities. In brief, Rowland alleges that he inj ured his left foot in December 2010 when a step collapsed at
CCCF and that personnel at that facility told him to treat it by icing it and keeping it
elevated . Rowland further alleges that he later received an x

- ray in February 2011 while
at SCI

- Rockview, which revealed that his foot was broken, followed by a March 2011 videoconference with an outside orthopedic doctor , who told him that the break appeared to be healing and recommended that he not apply extreme force or pressure on his injured
foot. Rowla nd alleges that he should have received an x

- ray earlier and that his treatment was otherwise inadequate, though he does not claim that defendants should have provided him with any other kind of treatment in particular. The defendants filed
motions to dis miss on various grounds, and the District Court granted their motions and dismissed Rowland’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) after concluding that it does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and t hat amendment would be futile. Rowland appeal s, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After reviewing Rowland’s complaint de novo, w e will affirm for the reasons adequately and thoroughly explained by the District Court. In particular, we agree that Rowland’s allegations, accepted as tru e, do not raise an inference that any defendant
acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 105

- 06 (1976). To the contrary, Rowland’s allegations make it clear that he received3

medical care for his foot , a nd neither his mere disagreement with that treatment nor its mere alleged inadequacy raises an inference of deliberate indifference. Se e, e.g. , id. at 107 ( explaining that “ t he question whether an X

- ray or additional diagnostic techniques
or forms of trea tment is indicated is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment ” and that “[a] medical decision not to order an X

- ray . . . does not represent cruel and unusual punishment” because, at most, it might constitute malpractice). Thus, we agree
with t he District Court both that Rowland’s complaint failed to state a claim and that any amendment of his complaint would be futile. Rowland’s cursory arguments in his notice of appeal lack merit. Rowland argues that the defendants’ briefs in support of thei r motions to dismiss were late and that the District Court “disregarded” his response in opposition to their motions, but we perceive no irregularity in that regard. Rowland also asserts that the District Court’s “assessment
that a broken foot can be trea ted and healed by faulty verbal and written communication . . . defies logic, medical treatment, and legal principles .” The District Court, however, made no such assessment. Instead, the District Court examined Rowland’s allegations regarding the assess ments made and treatment provided by the medical defendants and properly concluded that they do not raise an inference of deliberate indifference. For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.