Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20200108_0000116.WNC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 03:36:37
Document Index: 735576000

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

FindACase™ | Nichols v. Gamewell
Nichols v. Gamewell
JONATHAN NICHOLS, Plaintiff,
MARILYN GAMEWELL, et al. Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1]. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2); 1915A. Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. [Docs. 3, 8].
Pro se Plaintiff Jonathan Nichols (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, currently incarcerated at Central Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed this action on May 8, 2019, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the following individuals as Defendants: (1) Marilyn Gamewell, identified as a physician at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”); (2) FNU Harris, identified as a nurse at Alexander; (3) FNU Fox, identified as a nurse at Alexander; and (4) Wakenda Greene, identified as a grievance examiner for the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS). [Doc. 1 at 2].
Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. [Doc. 1]. Specifically, Plaintiff contends that, since his arrival at Alexander in May of 2017, Defendants Gamewell and Harris have interfered with Plaintiff's prescribed treatment for his “life threatening” condition, sickle cell anemia. Namely, Plaintiff's physician, Dr. Osunkwo, has prescribed Plaintiff certain medications and particular medical treatments for Plaintiff's sickle cell disease. Defendants Gamewell and Harris allegedly refuse to follow Dr. Osunkwo's treatment plan. Dr. Osunkwo is a specialist in his field and has treated Plaintiff for years. Plaintiff alleges that he is supposed to receive red blood cell exchange transfusions every month and, while at Alexander, he received them only twice in two years. [Doc. 1 at 3-4]. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that three different prescribed medications are being withheld from him and he is instead being given medications that are “clearly forbidden.” [Doc. 1 at 5]. As for Defendant Fox, Plaintiff alleges that Fox and Defendants Gamewell and Harris “stopped [Plaintiff's] treatment at the Levine Institute and sent [Plaintiff] to UNC. They didn't feel comfortable interfering with my sickle cell doctor from Levine.” [Doc. 1 at 7].
For his injuries, Plaintiff alleges that he has been living in constant physical agony for two years with fear of sudden death. [Doc. 1 at 10].
Allegations that might be sufficient to support negligence and medical malpractice claims do not, without more, rise to the level of a cognizable § 1983 claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Deliberate indifference is a very high standard-a showing of mere negligence will not meet it.”). To be found liable under the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must know of and consciously or intentionally disregard “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Johnson v. Quinones, 145 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1998). “[E]ven if a prison doctor is mistaken or negligent in his diagnosis or treatment, no constitutional issue is raised absent evidence of abuse, intentional mistreatment, or denial of medical attention.” Stokes v. Hurdle, 393 F.Supp. 757, 762 (D. Md. 1975), aff'd, 535 F.2d 1250 (4th Cir. 1976). The constitutional right is to medical care. No. right exists to the type or scope of care desired by the individual prisoner. Id. at 763. Therefore, a disagreement “between an inmate and a physician over the inmate's proper medical care [does] not state a § 1983 claim unless exceptional circumstances are alleged.” Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985) (dismissing the plaintiff's § 1983 claim against a defendant physician for allegedly discharging the plaintiff too early from a medical clinic, as such claim did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference but would, “at most, constitute a claim of medical malpractice”).
The Court finds that, taking Plaintiff's allegations as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Gamewell, Harris, and Fox for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs are not clearly ...