Opinion ID: 2979447
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Medical Claim

Text: Murphy claims that the district court erred in granting the defendants summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court has held that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners states a cause of action under section 1983. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). However, an inmate states a cognizable constitutional claim only if he makes a two-part showing including both an objective component and a subjective component. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Under the objective element, a plaintiff must show that a prison official denied him “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Under the subjective element, a plaintiff must show that a prison official acted with “deliberate indifference” to inmate health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Murphy claims that the district court erred in holding that, under the objective prong, his back pain was not a serious medical need as a matter of law. Murphy alleges in his complaint and states in his affidavit that he was in extreme pain due to his back condition and that the defendants ignored his complaints for forty-five days. Under Estelle, which also involved inadequate treatment of a back injury, 429 U.S. at 99, Murphy presented sufficient evidence of an objectively serious medical condition to survive summary judgment. Murphy claims that the district court erred in holding that he failed to establish deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants under the subjective prong. An examination of the medical records reveals that defendants responded to Murphy’s complaint by examining him, giving him No. 09-2132 Murphy v. Grenier Page 6 Ibuprofen, giving him written information about caring for his back, and scheduling an appointment with the prison physician. Thus, the medical staff accorded Murphy adequate attention in the time frame of his complaint. Because Murphy failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants acted with deliberate indifference, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to defendants on Murphy’s medical claim.