Court Opinion

ID: 2964316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:54.323596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:03.866376
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 26, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2312 

                                  JEROME WASHINGTON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            RONALD DUVAL, SUPERINTENDENT,
                                 MCI-WALPOLE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Jerome Washington on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Vincent L. DiCianni  and Ferriter, Scobbo, Sikora, Singal,  Caruso
            ___________________      _________________________________________
        & Rodophele, P.C., on brief for appellees.
        _________________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Jerome  Washington appeals  from the
                      ___________

            district court's  grant  of summary  judgment in  defendants'

            favor  on   his  claim  that   defendants  were  deliberately

            indifferent to  his medical needs and safety  in violation of

            the  Eighth Amendment  to the  Constitution.   We affirm  for

            substantially  the  reasons  given in  the  district  court's

            decision dated May 8, 1995, adding only a brief comment.  

                      Washington   correctly   claims   on  appeal   that

            defendants'  affidavit in support  of summary judgment failed

            to  recite   facts  which  suggested   that  defendant   John

            McClintock had reason to suspect that Washington might injure

            himself  if left  in a  cold cell.   Nonetheless,  the record

            supports the  court's determination that defendants  were not

            deliberately   indifferent  to  Washington's   needs  by  not

            providing him with a blanket.  Washington had told McClintock

            that he  had placed  a noose around  his neck, made  from his

            bedding,  because his  cell  was cold.    At the  same  time,

            however, he had also told McClintock that he did not want  to

            return to the general prison population because he feared for

            his  safety.    McClintock's   notes  indicate  that  he  was

            concerned that  Washington might hurt himself  because of his

            fear about  being returned to the general  population.  Under

            the   circumstances,  McClintock's   decision  not   to  give

            Washington a  blanket was reasonable,  even if  he knew  that

            Washington had once placed a noose around his neck because he

                                         -2-

            was cold, especially  since he continued regular  observation

            of Washington and informed  him that he could have  a blanket

            the next day if  the night passed "without incident."   Under

            the circumstances,  McClintock  did  not  act  in  deliberate

            indifference to Washington's needs,  and summary judgment  in

            defendants' favor was proper.  

                      Affirmed.  
                      _________

                                         -3-