Court Opinion

ID: 9957839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 15:01:07.938942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:51.806580
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14022   Document: 23-1    Date Filed: 04/05/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-14022
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MARCO MCILWAIN,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       DR EDWARD BURNSIDE,
       GDCP,
       L. ADAIR,
       Nurse, GDCP,

                                               Defendants-Appellees,

       LIEUTENANT A UGLEE,
USCA11 Case: 22-14022      Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2024     Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14022

                                                                 Defendant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 5:17-cv-00363-MTT-MSH
                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Marco McIlwain, an inmate at Macon State Prison, received
       medical care after being stabbed nine times by another inmate.
       Dissatisfied with the adequacy of that treatment, McIlwain brought
       a deliberate-indifference claim against the medical officials who
       treated him. The district court granted summary judgment in
       favor of the officials, finding that McIlwain failed to establish that
       they were subjectively aware of and disregarded a serious risk of
       harm. We agree and affirm.
                                         I.
              Marco McIlwain is a felon convicted of murder who was
       imprisoned at Macon State Prison when he got into a fight with
       two other inmates. He killed one of them, but was also stabbed
       nine times in the back and head. McIlwain was immediately taken
       to a hospital, where his wounds were cleaned. He also received an
       MRI and pain medication before being sent back to prison. There,
USCA11 Case: 22-14022     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 04/05/2024   Page: 3 of 6

       22-14022              Opinion of the Court                       3

       McIlwain went to the infirmary and was examined again by prison
       medical officials, who did their own scans and concluded that he
       was healing well. For the next three days, they gave him pain
       medication and changed the dressings for his wounds once a day.
              McIlwain was then transferred to the Special Management
       Unit, a higher security prison. There, he was prescribed pain
       medication by Dr. Edward Burnside, though he claims he did not
       receive that medication for two weeks. He also told Dr. Burnside
       and Nurse Lynda Adair that he was having trouble breathing, but
       Dr. Burnside reviewed McIlwain’s scans and concluded that his
       lungs looked fine and were healing well. McIlwain further
       complained to Nurse Adair that the dressings for his wounds had
       not been changed, and he requested a better mattress because the
       one he had was too thin and hurting his back. These complaints,
       he says, went unaddressed.
             McIlwain brought a § 1983 suit for deliberate indifference
       against Dr. Burnside and Nurse Adair based on these complaints.
       Following discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary
       judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting that
       motion, and the district court accordingly granted summary
       judgment. McIlwain appeals.
                                       II.
             “We review the district court’s decision to grant summary
       judgment de novo.” Waddell v. Valley Forge Dental Assocs., 276 F.3d
       1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis omitted). Summary
       judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
USCA11 Case: 22-14022         Document: 23-1         Date Filed: 04/05/2024         Page: 4 of 6

       4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-14022

       dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
       judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine
       issue of material fact exists “if the nonmoving party has produced
       evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could return a verdict in
       its favor.” Waddell, 276 F.3d at 1279. 1
                                             III.
               The Eighth Amendment bars prison officials from displaying
       “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.”
       Keohane v. Florida Dep’t of Corrs. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir.
       2020) (quotation omitted). Deliberate-indifference claims have
       “both an objective and a subjective component.” Id. at 1266. There
       must be “an objectively serious medical need” that, “if left
       unattended,” would pose “a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id.
       (quotation omitted). And the officials must have had “subjective
       knowledge of a risk of serious harm” and “disregarded that risk.”
       Id. (alteration adopted) (quotation omitted). Situations showing

       1 McIlwain did not object to the magistrate judge’s report recommending

       summary judgment in favor of the defendants, so the district court reviewed
       it for clear error. It also stated in the alternative that the report and
       recommendation satisfied de novo review. Our Rule 3-1 provides that we may
       review a district court’s factual and legal conclusions only for plain error if a
       plaintiff failed to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
       accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 11th Cir. R. 3-1. McIlwain argues that
       we should apply de novo review, however, because the district court itself
       applied de novo review. We have not recognized such an exception to Rule
       3-1, but McIlwain cites other circuits that have. We need not address this
       issue, however, because McIlwain’s objection fails under either standard of
       review.
USCA11 Case: 22-14022       Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 04/05/2024   Page: 5 of 6

       22-14022                Opinion of the Court                       5

       mere negligence or a difference in medical opinion do not amount
       to deliberate indifference; rather, “medical treatment violates the
       Eighth Amendment only when it is so grossly incompetent,
       inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be
       intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Id. at 1266, 1274 (alteration
       adopted) (quotation omitted).
              In reviewing McIlwain’s claims, the district court concluded
       that there was an objectively serious medical need that posed a
       substantial risk of serious harm. But it held that McIlwain had not
       shown that the defendants disregarded any risk of serious harm of
       which they were subjectively aware because they treated and
       monitored his injuries.
              We agree with the district court’s conclusion. The record
       reflects, and McIlwain acknowledges, that the defendants did treat
       and address his pain concerns. McIlwain’s wound dressings were
       examined and found to be dry, and his wounds were healing
       normally. 2 Dr. Burnside prescribed him pain medication, and
       McIlwain does not provide evidence to suggest that any delay was
       because officials disregarded a substantial risk of harm. And in
       response to McIlwain’s concerns about having difficulty breathing
       and needing a thicker mattress, Dr. Burnside noted that McIlwain’s
       lungs looked well in scans and concluded that further treatment
       and a new mattress were not necessary for his healing. McIlwain
       does not provide any evidence, other than his own claims of

       2 As McIlwain himself acknowledges, his wounds have healed.
USCA11 Case: 22-14022       Document: 23-1        Date Filed: 04/05/2024       Page: 6 of 6

       6                        Opinion of the Court                    22-14022

       discomfort, to suggest otherwise. Though he may disagree with
       the course of treatment provided, that is not enough to support his
       deliberate-indifference claim. Id. at 1274. 3
                                    *       *      *
              The record shows that the defendants examined McIlwain
       and treated his injuries in accordance with their medical judgment.
       Because McIlwain has not provided enough evidence to suggest
       that this judgment amounted to deliberate indifference, we
       AFFIRM the district court’s summary judgment order.

       3 We lack jurisdiction to review McIlwain’s claims that the magistrate judge

       improperly denied his motion for appointed counsel and motion to compel,
       both of which McIlwain acknowledges he did not raise before the district
       court. See United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009).