Robert David Roy v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida

418 F.2d 231, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10075
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 12, 1969
Docket28151
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 418 F.2d 231 (Robert David Roy v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Robert David Roy v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, 418 F.2d 231, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10075 (5th Cir. 1969).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se case appellant has failed to file a brief within the time fixed by Rule 31 F.R.A.P., and it is therefore appropriate to dispose of this case summarily pursuant to Rule 9(c) (2) of this Court. Stout v. Broom, 5th Cir. 1969, 406 F.2d 758.

Appellant is an inmate of the Florida State Prison at Raiford, Florida, confined in the maximum security wing. He filed a petition in the court below pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requesting an injunction directing Florida prison officials to provide him with adequate medical and dental care. Appellant claims that he is being denied such treatment solely because he is in maximum security. The district court denied relief without a hearing, stating that federal courts will not inquire into the general administration of state prisons. We affirm.

This Court is unwilling to interfere in the internal operation and administration of prison systems unless prison authorities have abused their wide discretion as to treatment of prisoners. Granville v. Hunt, 5th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 9; Schack v. Florida, 5th Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 593; Thompson v. Blackwell, 5th Cir. 1967, 374 F.2d 945. There has been no abuse of discretion shown here.

Appellant admits being treated while in maximum security for various illnesses and injuries. He admits that emergency dental care is available. He even admits that he declined surgery to rectify one serious condition of which he now complains and underwent surgery while in maximum security to remove a bullet from his knee.

The court below was correct in finding that appellant has failed to show a deprivation of constitutional rights upon which relief could be granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Stokes v. Hurdle
393 F. Supp. 757 (D. Maryland, 1975)
Hampe v. Hogan
388 F. Supp. 13 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
White v. Sullivan
368 F. Supp. 292 (S.D. Alabama, 1973)
Davis v. Schmidt
57 F.R.D. 37 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1972)
Newman v. State of Alabama
349 F. Supp. 278 (M.D. Alabama, 1972)
Sellars v. Beto
345 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. Texas, 1972)
Jones Ex Rel. Raiford Record v. Rouse
341 F. Supp. 1292 (M.D. Florida, 1972)
Novak v. Beto
456 F.2d 1303 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
Krist v. Smith
309 F. Supp. 497 (S.D. Georgia, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
418 F.2d 231, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 10075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-david-roy-v-louie-l-wainwright-director-division-of-corrections-ca5-1969.