Court Opinion

ID: 9950603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 16:00:57.030165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:16.110835
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13446    Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024   Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13446
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       MARK ANDREW HILDERBRAND,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

                                                              Plaintiﬀs,

       MRS. SHARON LEWIS,
       (GDC) Medical Director, in their
       individual capacities,
       MRS. SHARON BROWN,
       (GDC/GSP) Infectious Disease Specialist,
       in their individual capacites,
USCA11 Case: 22-13446     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024    Page: 2 of 8

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-13446

       MRS. EDWARDS,
       (GDC/GSP) Deputy Warden of Care and
       Treatment, in their individual capacities,
       MRS. RILEY,
       (GDC/GSP) PA, in their individual capacities,
       MRS. JONES,
       WARDEN, GEORGIA STATE PRISON, et al.,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-00072-JRH-BWC
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and ABUDU, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Mark Hilderbrand, a Georgia prisoner, appeals pro se the par-
       tial dismissal and partial summary judgment against his second
       amended complaint alleging that prison officials and medical pro-
       viders and Dr. Marcus Ochippinti were deliberately indifferent to
       his medical condition of latent tuberculosis. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
       Hilderbrand alleged that after he was diagnosed in 2010, he was
       prescribed medication to treat the latent tuberculosis but received
USCA11 Case: 22-13446      Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 3 of 8

       22-13446               Opinion of the Court                         3

       only part of the regimen and was denied the remainder without
       explanation, and his later attempts to receive the full regimen were
       unsuccessful. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary
       judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
       the prison officials and providers. The district court ruled that the
       evidence established that Hilderbrand’s treatment plan, consisting
       of 76 bi-weekly doses of Isoniazid, an antibiotic, was stopped after
       about 19 doses because he self-reported taking the medication ir-
       regularly, his liver function was impacted, he had been evaluated
       annually by a nurse for signs of active tuberculosis since 2010, and
       he had a low risk of developing active tuberculosis and lacked any
       symptoms of active tuberculosis. The district court also dismissed
       his claim against the Estate of Dr. Ochippinti without prejudice for
       lack of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). We affirm.
              We review de novo a summary judgment. Mosley v. Zachery,
       966 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2020). Summary judgment is appro-
       priate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
       the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 56(a). We also review the dismissal without prejudice of a com-
       plaint for failure to timely serve a defendant, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m),
       for abuse of discretion. Lepone-Dempsey v. Carroll Cnty. Comm’rs, 476
       F.3d 1277, 1280 (11th Cir. 2007).
              Hilderbrand argues that the district court erred in ruling that
       he did not challenge the prison officials’ alleged actions of exposing
       him to tuberculosis over a decade ago. But Hilderbrand does not
       challenge the alternative ruling that any claim regarding his initial
USCA11 Case: 22-13446      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13446

       exposure is untimely. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739
       F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (“To obtain reversal of a district court
       judgment that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an ap-
       pellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment
       against him is incorrect.”). He has forfeited any challenge to that
       alternative ruling.
              Hilderbrand argues that the prison officials and medical pro-
       viders were deliberately indifferent by failing to provide him with
       a “full series of antituberculosis medication to preserve his life.”
       We disagree.
              The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punish-
       ment, including deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious med-
       ical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Hilderbrand
       had to prove that the prison officials and providers knew he faced
       a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing
       to take reasonable measures. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847
       (1994). “[D]eliberate indifference describes a state of mind more
       blameworthy than negligence” and requires “more than ordinary
       lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.” Id. at 835.
               The record does not support the conclusion that the prison
       officials and providers were deliberately indifferent. Hilderbrand
       alleged that the prison officials and medical providers refused to
       treat his latent tuberculosis properly, but the evidence established
       that he received adequate medical attention for his condition. After
       he was diagnosed with latent tuberculosis in 2010, he was pre-
       scribed a nine-month regimen of Isoniazid consisting of 76
USCA11 Case: 22-13446     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 03/14/2024    Page: 5 of 8

       22-13446               Opinion of the Court                        5

       bi-weekly doses, but a few months later, the infection control nurse
       monitoring his condition noted that he reported taking only 13
       doses. Based on his noncompliance and having a clear chest x-ray
       with no symptoms of active tuberculosis, a physician stopped the
       regimen. A month later, a physician restarted the Isoniazid treat-
       ment at Hilderbrand’s request, but after the infection control nurse
       again “stressed med compliance” because he reported taking only
       19 doses, the medication was stopped due to noncompliance.
       Hilderbrand continued to meet with the nurse for screenings and
       chest x-rays, all of which were normal. In 2011, after he was pre-
       scribed Isoniazid a third time, a physician stopped the regimen after
       the nurse discovered that his liver enzymes, which measured his
       liver function and can become dangerously high due to Isoniazid,
       were elevated. Hilderbrand then was referred to the Infectious Dis-
       ease Clinic at Augusta State Medical Prison, where Millie Reeves,
       the statewide tuberculosis coordinator, evaluated him and rec-
       orded that he had missed 15 doses of Isoniazid but “could offer no
       explanation for his non-compliance.” After another chest x-ray re-
       vealed no active tuberculosis, Reeves recommended discontinuing
       Isoniazid due to his “history of non-compliance, his elevated liver
       function tests, the fact that [he] did not have the symptoms indicat-
       ing active TB, and the small chance that [he] would actually de-
       velop TB without [Isoniazid] or Rifampin,” another antibiotic used
       to treat tuberculosis that could cause liver damage.
              In December 2011, after a nurse reported that Hilderbrand
       was exposed to Isoniazid-resistant tuberculosis, a physician pre-
       scribed him a four-month regimen of Rifampin, which was later
USCA11 Case: 22-13446      Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13446

       discontinued. Although the record is not clear why Hilderbrand did
       not complete the Rifampin regimen, the infection control nurse
       continued to evaluate him annually over the next seven years, and
       none of his health screenings revealed symptoms of active tuber-
       culosis. In February 2020, after Hilderbrand told medical staff that
       he had been exposed to Isoniazid-resistant tuberculosis and pre-
       sented with symptoms, he returned to the medical prison, and
       Reeves closely monitored and tested him for active tuberculosis for
       over a week. Based on his normal chest x-rays, no symptoms of
       active tuberculosis, and three sputum smears that all tested nega-
       tive for tuberculosis, Reeves concluded that he did not have active
       tuberculosis. Reeves later attested that she could “state to an ex-
       tremely high degree of medical certainty that (1) Hilderbrand has
       never developed active [tuberculosis] and (2) Hilderbrand has not
       developed any medical problems as a result of him being exposed
       to [tuberculosis] and not completing a full round of either [Isonia-
       zid] or Rifampin therapy.” Reeves attested that based on Hilder-
       brand’s history of noncompliance, history of elevated liver en-
       zymes and the risk that tuberculosis treatment poses to his liver,
       and the small chance that he will develop active tuberculosis, she
       “would not recommend that [he] undergo any additional [Isonia-
       zid] or Rifampin therapy for his Latent [tuberculosis].”
              In the light of this undisputed medical evidence, Hilder-
       brand cannot establish that his medical condition was treated with
       deliberate indifference. Hilderbrand received almost two dozen
       medical evaluations and five chest x-rays since his diagnosis, includ-
       ing annual evaluations by the infection control nurse, and he does
USCA11 Case: 22-13446      Document: 40-1       Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 7 of 8

       22-13446                Opinion of the Court                          7

       not dispute that he never developed active tuberculosis. Hilder-
       brand instead argues that the decision to withhold treatment until
       he develops active tuberculosis amounts to deliberate indifference,
       but we cannot agree. The medical record reveals that Reeves made
       a medical judgment that attempting a fifth round of treatment us-
       ing either Isoniazid or Rifampin was not worth the risk of Hilder-
       brand being noncompliant again or his liver function suffering
       from the antibiotics, especially when the chance of him developing
       active tuberculosis was small. Although Hilderbrand denies being
       noncompliant, he fails to offer any explanation for why he self-re-
       ported missing so many doses after being advised of the im-
       portance of complying with the antibiotic regimen, and he does not
       dispute that his liver function was one reason for not continuing
       treatment. And allegedly failing to follow guidelines issued by the
       Center for Disease Control and the prison, without more, does not
       establish deliberate indifference. See Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254,
       1259 (11th Cir. 2000) (“[F]ailure to follow procedures does not, by
       itself, rise to the level of deliberate indifference because doing so is
       at most a form of negligence.”). Hilderbrand also fails to explain
       the significance of two alleged factual errors in the report and rec-
       ommendation regarding whether his August 2010 chest x-ray was
       “clear” and whether he was exposed to tuberculosis twice, as the
       magistrate judge stated, or only once, as Hilderbrand asserts.
              The district court also did not err in dismissing Hilder-
       brand’s claim against the Estate of Dr. Ochippinti for insufficient
       service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Although the United States
       Marshal timely served an individual named “Connie Ochippinti,”
USCA11 Case: 22-13446      Document: 40-1       Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 8 of 8

       8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13446

       the prison officials’ counsel explained to the district court during a
       conference call that Dr. Ochippinti and Connie divorced over 20
       years ago, and there was no evidence that she could receive service
       for the estate. Moreover, Hilderbrand waived the right to challenge
       this ruling by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s recommen-
       dation of dismissal after being warned of the consequence of failing
       to do so. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t Sta-
       tion #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020).
             We AFFIRM the partial dismissal and partial summary judg-
       ment against Hilderbrand’s complaint.