Casey Mattingly v. Duval County Jail

Opinion

Case: 18-11608 Date Filed: 09/25/2019 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11608

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00591-TJC-JBT

CASEY MATTINGLY, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DUVAL COUNTY JAIL, SHANDS HOSPITAL, DEBRA BARNES, M.D., SOHAIL KHAN, P.A.,

Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(September 25, 2019)

Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-11608 Date Filed: 09/25/2019 Page: 2 of 3

Casey Mattingly, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendants on his Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs. In its order, the district court concluded that the testimony and the medical records, far from establishing constitutional violations, showed that Mr. Mattingly “received consistent and adequate medical evaluation and treatment.” D.E. 83 at 29. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

Mr. Mattingly’s reference to particular instances of the defendants’ alleged failures to provide him with adequate care do not, even viewing them in the light most favorable to him, see S. Solvents, Inc. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 102, 104 (11th Cir. 1996), rise to the level of constitutional violations. As the district court pointed out, the defendants were responsive to Mr. Mattingly’s complaints, and he was treated at more than one hospital. That the defendants did not provide Mr. Mattingly with his desired course of treatment, or comply with the recommendations of outside medical professionals, is insufficient to create an issue of fact on a deliberate indifference claim. “[A] simple difference in medical opinion between the prison’s medical staff and the inmate as to the latter’s diagnosis or course of treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference.” Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1224 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we agree with the district court and adopt its reasoning as our own.

3

Case: 18-11608 Date Filed: 09/25/2019 Page: 3 of 3

AFFIRMED.