Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-3-2005 Bull v. USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-4046 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Bull v. USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 742. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/742 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Cour
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-3-2005 Bull v. USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-4046 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Bull v. USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 742. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/742 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-3-2005
Bull v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4046
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Bull v. USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 742.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/742
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-4046
________________
FRED BULL, JR.,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
DEVEN CHANMUGAM, Clinical Director;
J. ALLEN, Clinical Director;
L.T. RARICK, Emergency Medical Technician (EMT);
C. FRIMPONG, Physician Assistant;
J. BENNETT-MEEHAN, Physician Assistant;
KELLY AUMAN, Tele-Medicine Coordinator;
PLATIN HILLETEWORK, MLP
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-00598)
District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik
_____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 1, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: August 3, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Fred Bull, a federal inmate currently housed at FCI-Petersburg in Virginia, filed
this action seeking damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents,
403 U.S. 388
(1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the defendants’ alleged
mis-diagnosis and delay of treatment in connection with an eye injury that Bull claims to
have suffered while housed at USP-Allenwood in Pennsylvania.1 By Order entered
September 29, 2004, the District Court denied Bull’s motion to compel discovery, granted
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the merits of the FTCA claim, and
granted the motion to dismiss the Bivens claim for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Bull timely filed this appeal.
Bull first contests the District Court’s denial of his motion to compel discovery.
We discern no error. As the District Court explained, although Bull is no longer housed
at USP-Allenwood, he could have obtained (and eventually did obtain, albeit in an
untimely manner) his complete prison medical record simply by submitting a request to
his current institution of confinement. Moreover, as Bull was advised, his request for
medical records from outside medical services contractors, none of whom are parties to
this suit, had to be submitted directly to those contractors. The record also reflects that
Bull’s interrogatories were served on the defendants after the court-ordered deadline for
1
We assume the parties’ familiarity with Bull’s factual allegations and the
procedural history of the case, and thus we do not set forth that information in detail here.
2
the close of discovery. Finally, it is clear that most, and likely all, of the medical records
and documents Bull sought were provided to him and attached to the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment. On this record, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Bull’s motion to compel further discovery from the defendants.
Bull also challenges the rejection of his FTCA claim, but we agree with the
District Court that summary judgment on the merits in favor of the United States was
appropriate. Bull’s failure to produce expert testimony to support his assertion of medical
malpractice was, as the District Court found, fatal to his claim. It is clear from the record
of Bull’s extensive treatment, which took place over the course of almost two years
following his initial alleged injury at USP-Allenwood, that without the guidance of an
expert, a lay fact-finder could not attribute Bull’s injury (a detached retina) to the actions
of the medical personnel in treating Bull.
Finally, the record fully supports the District Court’s determination that Bull never
exhausted available administrative remedies before filing suit on his Bivens claim, and
Bull raises no viable argument to the contrary on the issue of exhaustion. We also note,
in any event, that Bull’s claim of “deliberate indifference” must fail on the merits, as
there is no evidence in the summary judgment record from which a reasonable fact-finder
could conclude that the medical staff who treated Bull acted with a reckless disregard for
his medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994). “It is well-settled
that claims of negligence or medical malpractice, without some more culpable state of
3
mind, do not constitute ‘deliberate indifference.’” Rouse v. Plantier,
182 F.3d 192, 197
(3d Cir. 1999).
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Bull’s Motion to
Supplement the Record, wherein he submits copies of the District Court docket sheet and
his notice of appeal, is denied as unnecessary, as those documents are already part of the
record that was transmitted by the District Court for the appeal.
4