Court Opinion

ID: 9408119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 17:00:54.195936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.937087
License: Public Domain

CLD-167                                                        NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-1519
                                       ___________

                                    JAMES GEORGE,
                                              Appellant

                                             v.

    MS. JERI SMOCK, CHCA, Health Care Administrator; MICHAEL CLARK, Facility
    Manager; CORRECTCARE SOLUTIONS WELPATH CORP; DANIEL STROUP,
                             Physician’s Assistant
                    ____________________________________

                    On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 1-20-cv-00320)
                    District Judge: Honorable Susan Paradise Baxter
                      ____________________________________

        Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
         Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                     June 29, 2023

             Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                              (Opinion filed: July 11, 2023)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
PER CURIAM

         Pro se appellant James George, proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals from the

District Court’s judgment in favor of Defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Since

George does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm.

                                             I.

         George alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to

provide him with adequate medical care. Specifically, George alleges that Defendant

Daniel Stroup failed to take appropriate action to diagnose the source of his chronic

pain.1 After the District Court dismissed two of the Defendants,2 the remaining

Defendants—Stroup and Correctcare Solutions Welpath Corp.—filed a motion for

summary judgment, which the District Court granted. This appeal followed.

         We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review

under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) with respect to the grant of summary judgment. See Allah v.

Ricci, 532 F. App’x 48, 50 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,

767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir. 2014).

1
  George also alleges that Stroup had been “falsifying his medical records” and
“practicing medicine … as a medical doctor for close to two (2) years without the proper
training or M.D. certificate.” George failed to present any evidence to support this
allegation, while Stroup demonstrated that he has been licensed as a physician’s assistant
since 2005.
2
    This Court concurs with the District Court’s reasons for dismissing those Defendants.

                                              2
       We must dismiss this appeal if we conclude that it is frivolous or fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). We may

summarily affirm the District Court’s order if we conclude that George has not presented

a substantial question or that subsequent precedent or a change in circumstances warrants

such action. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

                                             II.

       To state a claim under § 1983 that prison medical care violated his Eighth

Amendment rights, a prisoner must point to “(i) a serious medical need, and (ii) acts or

omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need.” Parkell v.

Danberg, 833 F.3d 313, 337 (3d Cir. 2016). Inadequate care stemming from errors in

medical judgment is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment. Id. “Where a prisoner

has received some amount of medical treatment, it is difficult to establish deliberate

indifference, because prison officials are afforded considerable latitude in the diagnosis

and treatment of prisoners.” Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 227 (3d Cir. 2017).

       The record shows that George received medical care from Defendants and other

medical professionals on multiple occasions. In addition to numerous examinations by

medical professionals, George also underwent x-ray scans on four separate occasions and

ultrasound scans on two separate occasions over approximately 15 months. During that

time, he was diagnosed with and treated for bilateral inguinal adenopathy,

hyperlipidemia, and a urinary tract infection. George contends that Defendants failed to

                                              3
eliminate his lower back pain, but the successful resolution of medical problems is not

the standard. Rather, to succeed on his claim, George needed to demonstrate deliberate

indifference to his serious medical need. He failed to do so. At best, he demonstrated

that he received substantive care from medical professionals using their discretion to treat

his ailments in a manner that was not fully successful. This does not rise to the level of

an Eighth Amendment violation. See Parkell, 833 F.3d at 337.

       Accordingly, we conclude that George has not presented a substantial question,

and thus summarily affirm the District Court’s order.

                                             4