Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 08-6840
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00390-RBH)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd Eugene Brown appeals from the district courts
grant of summary judgment to Defendants in his suit regarding
prison
conditions.
Brown
raises
claims
under
Biven
v.
Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA).
We
and
RA
were
Accordingly,
we
correctly
affirm
the
rejected
judgment
by
on
the
district
these
claims
of
the
district
courts
for
the
the
court.
However, we vacate
order
granting
summary
that
he
was
not
given
handicapped
accessible
shower.
state
claim
for
relief
under
the
Eighth
deliberately
indifferent
to
serious
condition,
medical
(4th
addition,
Cir.
prisoner
2006).
of
unnecessary
basic
In
human
infliction
of
needs,
conditions
pain,
2
involve
or
that
the
deprive
wanton
constitute
a
and
extreme
cruel
and
unusual
punishment
under
the
Eighth
Amendment.
With regard to
the
deprivation
and
complete
denial
for
an
extended
period of time.
(4th
(seven
Cir.
violated
1992)
constitutional
months
without
standards
of
out-of-cell
decency),
and
exercise
Knight
v.
without
recreation
violation).
constitutional
deprivation
does
not
Complaints
about
violation
only
is
serious
rise
to
infrequent
upon
one
to
Eighth
showers
showing
which
Amendment
state
that
defendants
a
the
were
Cir.
2005).
Summary
judgment
is
appropriate
when
no
Charbonnages de
To raise a
genuine issue of material fact, Brown may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of his pleadings.
answers
to
interrogatories,
and
477
U.S.
317,
322
(1986)
(quoting
admissions
on
Celotex Corp. v.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
56(c)).
The district court relied primarily on the affidavits
of
prison
physician
and
the
Defendants
to
show
that
the
the
Special
Housing
sixty-five days.
records
stated
Unit
(SHU),
where
he
remained
for
Plaintiff
was
able
to
ambulate
without
courts decision.
However,
our
review
of
the
medical
records
reveals
not
state
that
Brown
can
4
ambulate
without
assistance.
As such, we find
that the medical records are insufficient to show that Brown was
ambulatory
without
affidavits
and
incarceration,
assistance.
other
he
had
evidence
been
Moreover,
showing
found
to
Brown
that,
be
submitted
prior
disabled,
to
his
requiring
in
SHU;
that
he
repeatedly
complained
of
lack
of
that
crutches
were
not
medical
necessity,
these
indifference.
First,
Brown
asserts
that
his
is
charged
with
confirming
5
inferences
he
strongly
suspects
exist).
Second,
if
Browns
allegations
are
true,
if
diagnosis
was
1248,
1258
it
had
deteriorated
incorrect.
(11th
Cir.
See
1999)
or
whether
McElligott
(holding
v.
that
the
Foley,
jury
initial
182
F.3d
could
find
Cir.
2005)
(finding
that
dogged[]
persist[ance]
in
Finally, the
fact that the crucial conversation between medical staff and the
prison
officials
memorialized
in
was
the
not
reduced
medical
records
to
writing
would
or
seem
to
otherwise
militate
Moreover,
that
the
Defendants
failure
to
In addition, Brown
address
may
find
that,
under
officials
were
entitled
all
to
the
rely
his
While a trier of
circumstances,
on
obvious
the
medical
prison
staffs
trial.
Browns
claims
proceedings.
affirmed.
legal
before
above
and
remand
for
further
contentions
the
discussed
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART