Filed: Dec. 13, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-30633 Conference Calendar JOSEPH SIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE WACKENHUT et al., Defendants, JOHN SIMON, Dr., Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-599 - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Joseph Sias, Louisiana prisoner # 371351, proceeding pro s
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-30633 Conference Calendar JOSEPH SIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE WACKENHUT et al., Defendants, JOHN SIMON, Dr., Defendant-Appellee. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 98-CV-599 - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Joseph Sias, Louisiana prisoner # 371351, proceeding pro se..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30633
Conference Calendar
JOSEPH SIAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGE WACKENHUT et al.,
Defendants,
JOHN SIMON, Dr.,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-599
--------------------
December 13, 2000
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Joseph Sias,
Louisiana prisoner # 371351, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, appeals summary judgment in favor of the sole remaining
defendant, Dr. James Simon, a staff physician at the Allen
Correctional Center. Sias contends that Simon violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by discontinuing his prescription for
Elavil, an antidepressant that was used to treat Sias’s diabetic
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-30633
-2-
peripheral neuropathy. When Sias was disciplined for attempting
to smuggle Elavil out of the prison infirmary, Dr. Simon
discontinued the Elavil prescription and determined that Sias
could be adequately treated with over-the-counter medicines, in
accordance with prison policy.
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo under the
same standard applied in the district court. Amburgey v. Corhart
Refractories Corp.,
936 F.2d 805, 809 (5th Cir. 1991). Summary
judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant, “‘there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.’”
Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). If
the movant points out the absence of evidence supporting the
nonmovant’s claims, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts
showing a genuine issue for trial. Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
The Eighth Amendment proscribes medical care that is
“sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976). A prisoner’s disagreement with prison officials
regarding medical treatment is insufficient to establish an
unconstitutional denial of medical care. Norton v. Dimazana,
122
F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997).
The uncontested summary-judgment evidence indicates that
Sias’s condition was treatable with readily available alternative
medications. Dr. Simon’s decision to treat Sias’s complaints
with over-the-counter pain relievers rather than a prescription
No. 00-30633
-3-
antidepressant shows only a difference of opinion as to the
proper course of treatment. Sias has failed to show any genuine
issue of fact material to whether Simon acted with deliberate
indifference to his health problem.
AFFIRMED