Roger Mayweather v. Charles C. Foti, Jr.

Fifth Circuit

Roger Mayweather v. Charles C. Foti, Jr.

958 F.2d 91, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6503, 1992 WL 57109

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 10, 1992

Docket91-3650

StatusPublished

Cited by103 cases

This text of 958 F.2d 91 (Roger Mayweather v. Charles C. Foti, Jr.) 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

Roger Mayweather v. Charles C. Foti, Jr., 958 F.2d 91, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6503, 1992 WL 57109 (5th Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Mayweather challenges the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, following a trial to the magistrate, of his complaint for constitutionally inadequate medical care while in the Orleans Parish prison. To the extent that treatment for his back injury occurred while he was a pretrial detainee, he was entitled to “reasonable medical care,” Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir.1987); after conviction, his claim for inadequate medical care would succeed only if he proved that the denial of care constituted “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Contrary to Mayweather’s complaints, the record shows that he received continuous treatment for his back injury despite his incarceration. The treatment may not have been the best that money could buy, and occasionally, a dose of medication may have been forgotten, but these deficiencies were minimal, they do not show an unreasonable standard of care, and they fall far short of establishing deliberate indifference by the prison authorities. Continuing back pain is unpleasant. Its existence does not, however, in and of itself demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred.

*92 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Mayweather challenges the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, following a trial to the magistrate, of his complaint for constitutionally inadequate medical care while in the Orleans Parish prison. To the extent that treatment for his back injury occurred while he was a pretrial detainee, he was entitled to “reasonable medical care,” Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir.1987); after conviction, his claim for inadequate medical care would succeed only if he proved that the denial of care constituted “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Contrary to Mayweather’s complaints, the record shows that he received continuous treatment for his back injury despite his incarceration. The treatment may not have been the best that money could buy, and occasionally, a dose of medication may have been forgotten, but these deficiencies were minimal, they do not show an unreasonable standard of care, and they fall far short of establishing deliberate indifference by the prison authorities. Continuing back pain is unpleasant. Its existence does not, however, in and of itself demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred.

*92 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

958 F.2d 91, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6503, 1992 WL 57109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roger-mayweather-v-charles-c-foti-jr-ca5-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack