USCA1 Opinion
September 26, 1995
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 94-2062
BERNARDO FIGUEROA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
GEORGE A. VOSE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET
Opinion of this court issued on September 22, 1995, is
amended as follows:
On page 3, line 11: replace the words "had worked" with "had
not worked".
September 22, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 94-2062
BERNARDO FIGUEROA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
GEORGE A. VOSE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
_____________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
Bernardo Figueroa on brief pro se.
_________________
David J. Gentile on Memorandum In Support of Motion for Summary
_________________
Disposition for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Bernardo Figueroa appeals from the
___________
district court's judgment in favor of various prison
officials and medical personnel. In his action under 42
U.S.C. 1983, Figueroa alleged that defendants had violated
his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him proper medical
care for certain eye ailments. Because the record amply
supports the district court's judgment, we affirm,
essentially for the reasons given in the district court's
decision. See Figueroa v. Vose, 874 F. Supp. 500 (D.R.I.
___ ________ ____
1994). We add only the following comments about certain
arguments made on appeal.
First, although Figueroa claims that the court
refused to permit two physicians to testify on his behalf,
the facts do not support his claim. In scheduling an
additional day of trial, the district court ordered the
parties to present any remaining testimony at that time.
Figueroa told the court that he had no further witnessess.
Second, Figueroa claims that the record shows a
pattern of missed outside medical appointments which
demonstrates defendants' deliberate indifference to his
medical needs. The record documents only one occasion on
which Figueroa missed an outside medical appointment due to
circumstances within the prison's control. In August 1993,
prison officials brought him to the Rhode Island Hospital eye
clinic on the wrong day. They rescheduled the appointment,
however, and the rescheduled appointment was kept. Although
a few appointments were missed due to circumstances beyond
the prison's control, all such appointments were promptly
rescheduled and kept. Figueroa had numerous appointments
with outside physicians which were not missed. Accordingly,
the magistrate correctly found that defendants' failure to
bring Figueroa to certain medical appointments did not show
their deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Third, Figueroa argues that the court should not
have admitted into evidence a computer printout, which was
prepared by the prison payroll department and which allegedly
showed that corrections officer Alfred Lancellotti had not
worked on April 23 and 24, 1993. The court determined that
the printout verified Lancellotti's trial testimony that he
had not worked on the days in question. We need not
determine whether the court erred in admitting the printout
into evidence, or in determining that it supported
Lancellotti's trial testimony, since any such error would
have been harmless. Figueroa hoped to show that Lancellotti
had worked on April 23 and April 24, 1993, in order to
establish two other facts that allegedly occurred on those
days -- first, that Lancellotti had heard one of the
defendants, a nurse, tell him that she did not have a
particular medication for him; and, second, that Lancellotti
had signed written requests by Figueroa for that medication.
-3-
Demonstrating either of those facts would not show the
defendants' deliberate indifference to Figueroa's medical
needs, however. The record indicates that the medication
Figueroa sought was Naphcon-A, which an outside specialist
had recommended on April 20, 1993. But the record also shows
that prison staff doctors had never prescribed that
medication for Figueroa in April 1993 and that a prescription
by a staff doctor was required before medication recommended
by outside physicians could be given to an inmate.
Consequently, assuming that the nurse did tell Figueroa that
she did not have the medication he sought, she was entirely
right, and her statement does not evidence deliberate
indifference to Figueroa's medical needs. Likewise, assuming
that Figueroa did submit written requests for that
medication, the failure to give it to him would not
demonstrate defendants' deliberate indifference to his
medical needs, absent a showing that the prison unreasonably
delayed in having a staff doctor evaluate the appropriateness
of the medication and then issuing a prescription. Figueroa
made no such showing.
Since the facts Figueroa ultimately sought to
demonstrate would not have shown defendants' culpability,
showing that Lancellotti could have witnessed the nurse's
statement or signed Figueroa's requests would not have
advanced Figueroa's cause. Hence, the admission of the
-4-
payroll printout allegedly showing that Lancellotti was
absent from work on the days in question and could not have
known about the events alleged by Figueroa, and the court's
determination that the printout confirmed Lancellotti's
testimony that he was absent, could not have been
prejudicial.
Finally, Figueroa argues that defendants have never
returned him to an outside dermatologist regarding the lesion
on his eyelid. The record indicates that there was no need
to do so. The last physician to evaluate the lesion
recommended seeing a dermatologist again only if the lesion
did not heal. In his appellate papers, Figueroa states that
the lesion left a scar on his eyelid, indicating that the
lesion has healed.
Affirmed.
_________
-5-
