[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 20, 2008
No. 07-13285
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00702-CV-TCB-1
GLEN S. MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN PALTE,
GONZALEZ,
JOHN DOE, I,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 20, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Glenn Matthews, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal sua sponte
of his complaint that Dr. Stephen Palte, physician’s assistant Gonzalez, and an
unknown dermatologist violated his civil rights under the Eighth Amendment. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Matthews argues that he stated a claim that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs because they
misdiagnosed and mistreated his psoriasis. We affirm.
A district court is required to dismiss a prisoner’s complaint against an
official if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), (b)(1). We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to state a claim and accept as true the allegations in the
complaint. Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1278–79 (11th Cir. 2001).
To state a claim of deliberate indifference for medical mistreatment under
the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege that officials have made an
“omission[] sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to [the
inmate’s] serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct.
285, 292 (1976). The inmate “must satisfy both an objective and a subjective
inquiry.” Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003). Under the
objective inquiry, the inmate must allege that he has been diagnosed with or
obviously exhibits a serious medical condition that, if not treated, “pos[es] a
2
substantial risk of serious harm,” and his treatment was so inadequate that it
constituted “an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Id. (quoting Taylor v.
Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Under the subjective inquiry, the inmate must allege that the prison official knew
of the risk of harm and deliberately delayed or denied treatment. Id. at 1245.
Even if we assume that psoriasis is a serious medical condition, Matthews’s
complaint that his condition was misdiagnosed as spider bites and mistreated with
steroid creams does not state a claim of deliberate indifference. Matthews’s
allegations of misdiagnosis and inadequate treatment involve no more than medical
negligence. Farrow, 320 F.3d at 1245. Matthews alleges that his condition more
recently has been correctly diagnosed by a dermatologist as psoriasis. Matthews
also has received regular treatment for his psoriasis, which the exhibits to
Matthews’s complaint establish is an incurable and chronic condition. The district
court did not err when it dismissed Matthew’s complaint for failure to state a
claim.
The dismissal of Matthews’s complaint is AFFIRMED.
3