Bradshaw v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

First Circuit

Bradshaw v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

6 F. App'x 45

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 2001

Docket00-1664

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 F. App'x 45 (Bradshaw v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradshaw v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 6 F. App'x 45 (1st Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sydney Bradshaw appeals a district court judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We review such a dismissal de novo. See Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1999).

Upon review of Bradshaw’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that his claims of the defendants’ allegedly inadequate response to his medical needs do not rise to the level of a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs so as to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (setting forth standard). At most, Bradshaw’s dispute is over the adequacy of his medical treatment. He prefers the treatment regimen which he claims was ordered by a doctor at the facility where he was previously incarcerated. But, “[t]he right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment does not include the right to the treatment of one’s choice.” Layne v. Vinzant, 657 F.2d 468, 473 (1st Cir.1981). “ ‘[Wjhere a prisoner has received some medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law.’ ” Id." at 474 (quoting Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir.1976)).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Sydney Bradshaw appeals a district court judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We review such a dismissal de novo. See Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.1999).

Upon review of Bradshaw’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that his claims of the defendants’ allegedly inadequate response to his medical needs do not rise to the level of a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs so as to constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (setting forth standard). At most, Bradshaw’s dispute is over the adequacy of his medical treatment. He prefers the treatment regimen which he claims was ordered by a doctor at the facility where he was previously incarcerated. But, “[t]he right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment does not include the right to the treatment of one’s choice.” Layne v. Vinzant, 657 F.2d 468, 473 (1st Cir.1981). “ ‘[Wjhere a prisoner has received some medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law.’ ” Id." at 474 (quoting Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n. 5 (6th Cir.1976)).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradshaw-v-correctional-medical-services-inc-ca1-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack