UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7625
HERBERT T. BOWENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
AL CANNON, Charleston County Sheriff; DOCTOR
PIENNING, Correct Care Solutions; NATIONAL
COMMISSION OF HEALTH CARE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-05-2396)
Submitted: March 15, 2006 Decided: April 12, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Herbert T. Bowens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Herbert T. Bowens appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
without prejudice his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000),
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000).* We affirm in part,
vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Bowens alleged that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and failed to protect him
from an attack by another inmate. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error in the district court’s dismissal of the
failure to protect claim or of the claims of deliberate
indifference arising before Bowens had surgery on his hand.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief on these claims for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Bowens v. Cannon,
No. CA-05-2396 (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 2005).
With regard to Bowen’s claims that the medical defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
post-surgery, we review de novo the district court’s dismissal of
those claims for failure to state a claim. De’Lonta v. Angelone,
330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). A court “should not dismiss a
complaint for failure to state a claim unless after accepting all
well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and
*
This order is a final, appealable order over which we have
jurisdiction. See Chao v. Rivendell Woods, Inc., 415 F.3d 342,
344-45 (4th Cir. 2005).
- 2 -
drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the
plaintiff’s favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot
prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to
relief.” Slade v. Hampton Roads Reg’l Jail, 407 F.3d 243, 248 (4th
Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Bowens alleged that medical personnel failed to properly
clean and dress the surgical wound, failed to issue the prescribed
antibiotics, and caused him to miss follow-up appointments at the
hospital by failing to arrange for transportation. Taking these
allegations as true, we find that Bowens alleged facts sufficient
to state a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (discussing
standard); Martinez v. Garden, 430 F.3d 1302, 1305 (10th Cir. 2005)
(“Knowledge of [plaintiff’s] medical condition, coupled with the
alleged failure to inform him of medical appointments or to arrange
transportation, may give rise to an inference that defendants acted
with deliberate indifference.”); Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649, 661-62
(7th Cir. 2004) (finding that defendant’s unexplained refusal to
dispense prescribed medication to treat serious infection at
surgical wound site created genuine issue of material fact
regarding defendant’s state of mind).
Accordingly, we vacate this portion of the district
court’s order and remand for further proceedings. We recognize
that “[d]eliberate indifference is a very high standard--a showing
- 3 -
of mere negligence will not meet it.” Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d
692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999). But, without at least the aid of a
response by the defendants, we cannot rule on the present record
and, therefore, we express no opinion on the ultimate disposition
of Bowens’ claims. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
- 4 -