Case: 11-12477 Date Filed: 10/31/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-12477
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-01235-ODE
LONZIE MCCALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CAPTAIN SANDRA COOK,
MAJOR NELSON,
Henry County Jail, et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 31, 2012)
Before HULL, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 11-12477 Date Filed: 10/31/2012 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, a Georgia state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the District
Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s section
1983 civil rights complaint. No reversible error his been presented; we affirm the
judgment.
On appeal, Plaintiff contends that prison doctor James Barlow and prison
guard Bobby Sloan were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious back, hip,
and thigh-pain-related medical needs.* Plaintiff also appeals the District Court’s
denial of Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.
We review de novo the District Court’s grant of summary judgment,
viewing all evidenced facts and reasonably drawn inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175,
1186-87 (11th Cir. 1999).
To show constitutionally inadequate treatment in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, “a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 97
*
Plaintiff presents no arguments on appeal about the other named defendants; so, contentions
about the other defendants are abandoned. See United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8
(11th Cir. 2003).
2
Case: 11-12477 Date Filed: 10/31/2012 Page: 3 of 4
S. Ct. 285, 292 (1976). Mere allegations of negligence or medical malpractice
establish no constitutional violation. Id. And to prevail on an inadequate medical
treatment claim requires that a plaintiff satisfy both an objective and subjective
requirement. E.g., Burnette v. Taylor, 533 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2008).
Here, Plaintiff fails to show a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff’s
medical records indicate that he was examined by Dr. Barlow on six occasions for
back-pain-related reasons. Dr. Barlow also prescribed Plaintiff medicine for the
pain. While Plaintiff may have had a serious medical need that was later
discovered at a different facility, Dr. Barlow’s decision to order no x-ray or other
diagnostic imaging was a medical judgment that does not amount to deliberate
indifference. See Estelle, 97 S. Ct. at 292-93. And no record evidence shows that
Sloan was deliberately indifferent in denying, delaying, or interfering with
Plaintiff’s medical care. See id. at 291. So, no genuine issue of material fact
about deliberate indifference to a serious medical need exists on this record.
Plaintiff also contends that the District Court erred in denying Plaintiff’s
motion for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff contends that he was prejudiced
by having no appointed counsel. Briefly stated, Plaintiff says he needed legal
assistance with discovery and trial preparation because of Plaintiff’s lack of legal
3
Case: 11-12477 Date Filed: 10/31/2012 Page: 4 of 4
training, the complexity of the legal and medical issues, and the likelihood of the
need for expert testimony.
We review the District Court’s decision about whether to appoint counsel
for abuse of discretion. Dean v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992). “A
civil litigant, including a prisoner pursuing a section 1983 action, has no absolute
constitutional right to the appointment of counsel. The appointment of counsel is
instead a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances[.]” Poole v.
Lambert, 819 F.2d 1025, 1028 (11th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
This case involves no “exceptional circumstances”: the issues were
relatively straightforward and based on incidents personally experienced by
Plaintiff. See Fowler v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1088, 1096 (11th Cir. 1985). And the
record indicates that Plaintiff was able to ascertain the legal and factual basis of
his claim and to present adequately the “essential merits” of his case. See Kilgo v.
Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993).
We AFFIRM the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Defendants.
AFFIRMED.
4