Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-16-2006
Brandner v. First Corr Med
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3920
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Brandner v. First Corr Med" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1568.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1568
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-108 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-3920
________________
LARRY BRANDNER, Appellant
v.
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL;
MEDICAL DIRECTOR JOHN DOE;
RN BRENDA HOLWERDA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-01146)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 26, 2006
BEFORE: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: February 16, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Larry Brandner, an inmate at the Delaware Correctional Center (“DCC”) in
Smyrna, Delaware, appeals from the dismissal of his pro se action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Brander filed the instant lawsuit against First
Correctional Medical Center (“FCM”), Medical Director John Doe, and Nursing
Supervisor Brenda Holwerda pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendants
failed to provide him with adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
According to the complaint, on or about August 15, 2002, Brandner’s knee was
injured by another inmate at DCC. Two weeks later, his knee remained swollen and sore,
prompting Brandner to seek medical attention. As explained by the District Court, the
complaint indicates that between the date of injury and the date the complaint was filed,
Brandner’s knee was examined by employees of FCM on approximately a monthly basis.
FCM staff provided Brandner with pain medication and performed X-rays. Brandner
alleged that he was told as early as September 19, 2002 that crutches and a knee brace
would be ordered for him, but he never received either. Brandner filed grievances on
December 2, 2002 and February 1, 2003, complaining of the failure of prison officials to
provide him with crutches or a knee brace. On February 3, 2003 one of the doctors
recommended an MRI and told Brandner he would try to get him a cane, which Brandner
received in March of 2003. Brandner was informed on March 31, 2003 that the Medical
Director had denied his request for an MRI. Brandner filed his complaint on December
17, 2003.
2
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Brandner failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate
either deliberate indifference to a serious medical need or personal involvement of
Holweda sufficient to state a claim against her. They also argued that Brandner’s claims
against FCM impermissibly rested on respondeat superior liability, and that, with respect
to the remaining defendant, Delaware law does not permit fictitious name practice. On
July 23, 2005, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the acts
alleged by Brandner did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required to state a
claim under the Eighth Amendment, especially in light of FCM’s continuing provision of
medical care through the date of the opinion. Brandner timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because this
appeal presents no “substantial question,” we will summarily affirm the District Court’s
order. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.
In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the Supreme Court held that an inmate’s
claims against members of the prison medical department were not viable under § 1983,
where the inmate had received continuing care from medical staff, but believed that more
should have been done for him by way of diagnosis and treatment, and maintained that a
number of options available to medical personnel were not pursued on his behalf. Id. at
107. According to the Supreme Court, questions of medical judgment such as these are
not appropriate subjects of § 1983 lawsuits. See id.
3
Brandner’s complaint suffers from the same defect as the complaint at issue in
Estelle. In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Brandner states that, since the time his
complaint was filed, he has received an MRI, which indicates that his knee is within
“normal range,” he has continued to receive medication and joint injections, and he has
been referred to an orthopedic surgeon. Brandner maintains that, despite these efforts, he
continues to experience swelling and pain in his knee. These allegations do not rise to the
level of deliberate indifference on the part of Appellees to Brandner’s serious medical
needs. See id. at 106 (holding that “a complaint that a physician has been negligent in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim under the Eighth
Amendment”); Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (“It is well-settled that
claims of negligence or medical malpractice, without some more culpable state of mind,
do not constitute ‘deliberate indifference.’”).
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the decision of the District Court. 3d Cir.
LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6. Brandner’s motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.