Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-15-2006
Balter v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3687
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Balter v. USA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1579.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1579
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.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-3687
________________
RICHARD BALTER,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;
JAE H. SHIM, Clinical Director, Health Services Unit;
MAXIMO R. VALESCO, Medical Officer, Health Services Unit;
DANIEL O. ROMERO, Medical Officer, Health Services Unit;
ARNOLD T. REYES, Health Services Administrator
_____________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-01944)
District Judge: Honorable Judge James M. Munley
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 6, 2006
BEFORE: ROTH, RENDELL and AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: February 15, 2006)
_____________
OPINION
______________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Richard Balter, appeals from an order entered by the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint. The facts
and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties. It is thus not necessary
for us to restate them in great detail here. Balter, a federal prisoner, filed the underlying
complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §
2671, et seq., against the following defendants: the United States of America; the Federal
Bureau of Prisons; Jae H. Shim, Clinical Director of the Health Services Unit; Maximo R.
Valesco, Medical Officer; Daniel O. Romero, Medical Officer; and Arnold T. Reyes,
Health Services Administrator. Balter essentially asserts that the defendants failed to
provide him with timely and adequate medical treatment for an eye condition, and that the
delayed treatment which he did receive resulted in the loss of vision in his right eye.
We have jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
exercise plenary review over a District Court’s order granting defendants’ motion to
dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment. See Debiec v. Cabot Corp., 352 F.3d
117, 128 n.3 (3d Cir. 2003); Broselow v. Fisher, 319 F.3d 605, 607 (3d Cir. 2003). After
careful review of the record, we find that dismissal was proper and we will thus affirm the
judgment of the District Court.
The District Court properly granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to
defendant Reyes because Reyes had no direct involvement in Balter’s medical treatment.
See Ruiz Rivera v. Riley, 209 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 2000)(citing cases holding that
respondeat superior is not a viable theory of Bivens liability); cf. Rode v. Dellarciprete,
845 F.2d 1195 (3d Cir. 1988) (no respondeat superior liability in § 1983 cases). As for
2
Balter’s Eighth Amendment claim against the remaining defendants, summary judgment
was appropriate insofar as Balter failed to demonstrate that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his eye condition. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
In fact, a review of the record shows that Balter was seen on numerous occasions by
prison doctors, outside ophthalmologists, and a variety of specialists. As the District
Court concluded, Balter’s disagreement with the prison doctors regarding the type of
treatment he should have been given does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation.
See White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1990). Summary judgment was thus
properly granted with respect to the merits of Balter’s Eighth Amendment claim and, we
would note, Balter does not take issue with the District Court’s disposition of this claim
on appeal.
Finally, we agree with the District Court that Balter’s FTCA claim was barred by
the statute of limitations. Initially, we reject appellant’s argument that the District Court
committed reversible error in considering defendants’ argument regarding the timeliness
of his FTCA claim since it was not raised in their initial motion to dismiss the complaint
and for summary judgment. As we have noted in the past, affirmative defenses (including
the statute of limitations) are not waived if raised at a “pragmatically sufficient time” with
no prejudice to the plaintiff. See Eddy v. VI Water & Power Authority, 256 F.3d 204,
209 (3d Cir.2001), citing Charpentier v. Godsil, 937 F.2d 859, 864 (3d Cir. 1991). Here,
defendants raised the statute of limitations defense in their objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s first Report and Recommendation, and again on remand from the District Court
3
in their answer and second motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. Balter was
afforded an opportunity to meet that defense and to present his arguments to both the
Magistrate Judge and the District Court. Given these circumstances, we cannot agree
with appellant’s contention that the District Court erred in considering the limitations
defense.
That having been said, Balter was required to file an administrative claim with the
appropriate federal agency within two years after his claim accrued. See 28 U.S.C. §
2401(b). The District Court correctly concluded that Balter knew of both the existence
and the probable cause of his injury in August 1997 because, at that time, two eye
specialists had allegedly told him that the delay in seeking treatment had adversely
affected his prognosis. In his complaint, Balter claimed the delay was caused by the
prison medical staff at USP-Lewisburg. Moreover, in his September 26, 2000
administrative complaint Balter listed the “incident date” as August 29, 1997. While
Balter argues that the incident was ongoing, we agree with the District Court that the
events which occurred subsequent to August 1997 did not allow him to delay in bringing
suit until after his treatment was complete. See Tyminski v. United States, 481 F.2d 257
(3d Cir. 1973). Balter thus had until August 1999 to file his administrative tort claim.
The claim he filed on September 26, 2000 was clearly untimely.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
4