Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

John J. McCarthy v. Mr. Maddigan, Dr. Perry Dr. Walter Dr. Delmuro, 90-3112 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Number: 90-3112 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 22, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 962 F.2d 973 John J. McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. MADDIGAN, Dr. Perry; Dr. Walter; Dr. Delmuro, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-3112. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. April 22, 1992. Before McKAY, Chief Circuit Judge, and MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. ORDER 1 Mr. McCarthy, a federal prisoner, filed a Bivens 1 -type civil action seeking monetary damages for the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court, relying upon Brice v. Day, 604
More

962 F.2d 973

John J. McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mr. MADDIGAN, Dr. Perry; Dr. Walter; Dr. Delmuro,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-3112.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

April 22, 1992.

Before McKAY, Chief Circuit Judge, and MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Mr. McCarthy, a federal prisoner, filed a Bivens1--type civil action seeking monetary damages for the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court, relying upon Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-68 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086, 100 S. Ct. 1045, 62 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1980), dismissed the claim without prejudice as Mr. McCarthy failed to demonstrate he had made use of the administrative review process provided by the Bureau of Prisons. We affirmed, being bound by our precedent in Brice. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir.1990).

2

The Supreme Court reversed this court's decision holding that exhaustion of the Bureau of Prison's administrative procedure is not required before a federal prisoner can initiate a Bivens action solely for monetary damages. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 1081, 117 L. Ed. 2d 291 (1992).

3

We therefore recall our mandate and reverse the order of the district court and remand this case to the district court for such further proceedings as may be just and proper in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.

4

The mandate shall reissue forthwith.

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971)

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer