Opinion ID: 607691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Kiray's Motion to Dismiss.

Text: 8 A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) only if it appears beyond doubt that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232 (1984) (citation omitted). In this case, all that Clarkson has alleged is that Dr. Kiray reviewed his medical records at the request of Dr. Nonweiler without obtaining Clarkson's permission first, and that Dr. Kiray endorsed the opinion of the other consulting physicians that Clarkson no longer needed Percocet. There is nothing in the facts alleged to suggest that Dr. Kiray's review of Clarkson's medical records constituted deliberate indifference to Clarkson's serious medical needs. Moreover, Clarkson's characterization of Dr. Kiray's very limited involvement in his medical treatment as collusive does nothing to save his complaint, because Dr. Kiray's prior consultation with Dr. Nonweiler does not evince the culpable mental state necessary to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The district court's dismissal of Clarkson's claim against Dr. Kiray was therefore entirely proper. 9